MWS is a prophet of Satan. I only say that because I generally can’t stand his girl like nasal tone. Ask MS, I thought he needed the crap kicked out of him 15 years ago. I’d love to see him being forced to tour and write with the guys from POD. There’s a frame of reference for you! What a GIRL.

MS: I loved you selection. Though, I don’t think the there was enough malice in it. I want to hear some talk about how cathartic it would be for the family to get to be the ones that actually get to cause him to cease breathing.

In ol’ Mike W. S.’s defense, I know for a fact he has attended, and has played (free of charge) at at least one Presbyterian church in NC. I wouldn’t call the church “dead”, as much as I might call it “quiet”.

Frankly, I used to share that opinion, so I can’t hold too much malice in my heart toward Mr. Smith. For that. His music, on the other hand…

I know Rob is in Romania, so I am going to get away with murder here. There is an article in our esteemed state Baptist newspaper, (right between the obligatory anti-Calvinism letter and the kiss up to Open Theism) wherein the talented Michael W. Smith- a guy I have generally respected- gives an interview about CCM and his new worship album being recorded in Louisville, etc. It is absolutely rotten.

MWS says that churches that do not use CCM are dead. He knows cause he has been there. (Wow. The guy gets around. Where are all those dead churches spending several grand to have MWS come in to sing a bit?) He then says that using CCM indicates you are willing to pass the torch so to speak to the next generation, and that you aren’t afraid of change. He then quotes some lyric from his last album and says “That’s never been said before…” and goes on and on. And of course, guess what, people are, according to MWS FINALLY “falling in love with Jesus” as a result of CCM.

I am sorry people but this is the sort of twaddle that just brings me out of my shell. It is exactly the kind of arrogant wrongheaded nonsense that I wrote about in my first article on worship. And coming from MWS it is all the more disappointing.

It’s all here. The spiritual churches are buying and using our product. The rest are dead. Singing, crying, swaying and raising hands to this style is “FINALLY falling in love with Jesus” Did anyone really love Jesus till CCM got them there? Wonderful. And if you don’t use CCM, you are selfish and fearful. This kind of self-important self anointed baloney and trashing of non-fans is what turns me off more and more and more. How can they talk like this? So what if a pile of people raised on radio and MTV like your band and your music better than A Mighty Fortress? How in the heck do you talk about FINALLY falling in love with Jesus when you have no idea about how these people feel about Jesus apart from the music? LOTS of the people I know who really dig CCM and are “falling in love with Jesus” through the songs won’t get near the preaching or teaching of the Bible at all, and they equate CCM fandom with discipleship. C’mon MWS. Give me a break. You used to pay some heed to Rich Mullins as a mentor. Did you listen at all?

IM is updated: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. This is about the New Age funeral message for the little murdered girl, and the unsatisfying New Age response to evil.

Jake: It’s the Broccoli perfume Bart wrote about.

RonH on Canada: How beautifully sterotypical and typically ugly American rhetoric. Have a brewski. God bless you. Let’s go shoot geese.

RonH on Terrorism: I think we need the NG at the borders for a while, but YOU ARE RIGHT SIR in fact I think Bush should call the Saudi’s- not all the Arabs, but the Saudi’s- and say the clock is running you got ten years and I got two words for you: Alaska and Russia and I don’t freaking care if it’s $3 a gallon we can afford it. Then install democracies in Iraq, Iran and Kuwait and fund every democratic reform movement in the Arab world with couple of billion and watch ‘em sweat.

MatthewJ and all: I really was hoping for some good sex ed memories out of you guys with that article.

I changed my mind, this is the best line ever (from Michael’s sex-ed article) – “Yes young man, you can get it from an animal.”

IM articles in the works: “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil: A Response to the Funeral of Samantha Runion.” “Why Do Most Christians Think They Don’t Have a Theology?”

MatthewJ: Let me give a moderate defense of the President at this point. A lot of conservatives are for militarizing the borders in a crisis of domestic terrorism. If this is a war (and it is), and if it is a war on our own soil (and it is), then militarizing the borders seems a reasonable possiblity, even if one most libertarian types would want to avoid at all costs (which we should- to a point.) If RonH were president and we had real state militias then we would be able to deal with this threat differently. But the President is looking at intel info that is telling him there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Islamists bent on terror seeking access to the country through our borders, particularly own non-existent northern border. We already have evidence, fromt he Seattle bomber and several of the 9/11 guys, that this is happening. Bill O’Reilley has talked about this a great deal, and I think he represents that part of conservatism that wants an activist government response domestically before something terrible happens. Too bad we don’t have the state militias to deal with it. I have to say that it probably will take a major domestic terrorism incident to make the President’s position clear on this. I don’t particularly want to see our borders militarized, but the fact is we have neither a state force or any other law enforcement group that can insure our borders are not the back door for terrorists to use against us. It is no mistake that Miami and South Florida appear to be an Al Queda entrance point. The idea of 12,000 hostiles on our soil ready to bomb malls, churches, schools, poison the water, crash planes into nuke plants, etc. I makes me a supporter of the prudent use of the National Guard for this job.

Pizza is on the pyramid tomorrow round 1:30.

Beauty eh!

Here is Angusonian response to our Canadian “friend”.

The bottom line here is that we are the only county in the world that has pulled itself up by it’s boot straps and created the opportunities that have put us were we are today.
This country was founded by rugged individualists that sought to transcend the hieratical structure of a country ruled by monarchy. We were repulsed by the idea that we could never ascend past the station that would have been dictated to us in that situation.

Now, we are successful. Now, everyone else in the world is crying because they aren’t us. They qualify their statements by assuming a self-righteous stance of moral superiority. When the truth is that they just expect to share in our prosperity for no apparent reason. We have bailed out or given aid to every major country in the world (at least once), without payback.

So, if our country acts in a self-serving/ self-preserving fashion, get over it. I mean, after all, didn’t a significant number of the 9/11 terrorists come through the Canadian borders? Hasn’t the Canadian government (along with Mexico) refused to tighten their security measures as to movement of people across their borders?

My question is, what do we owe the rest of the world? Don’t they get enough of our money and prosperity as it is? Correct me if I’m wrong here.

What?!?!?! This is ridiculous. My Dad is saying that all this crap Bush is doing (consolidating power), especially using the armed forces for domestic law enforcement, is reminiscent of what happened after the Reichstag fire in 1933 (or thereabouts). I thought Republicans were supposed to be about less government.

Michael – Is Greek Pizza on that mediterranean food pyramid? Can’t wait until tomorrow.

Eric and Group: Got a note from Jack. Here was his weekend. “Went to Stonehenge, a jousting tournament and attended Evensong at Salisbury Cathedral.” This makes me sick. I would list a culturally diverse weekend in Clay County, but it would be misunderstood by the Canadian readers.

Jack: When my daughter was in the UK last year, Stonehenge was taken off the tour. She thought it was closed to tourists.

Group: Don’t forget to at least give a comment on the Canadian’s letter. I have dialoged with him for three letters and if called it off. He starting name calling as soon as I didn’t agree that the virutous and intelligent thing to do is loath America. I was- guess what- defensive and closed minded. Hallelujah.

MikeB: I agree that it is difficult to see the path to this at this point. The “buffer” of the Bill of Rights and all that legal precedent makes it unlikely. But I do believe we are likely headed to a highly intolerant liberal Federal government within the next 50, a government that exerts considerable control of areas of life that we can’t imagine today. As I said, look at Europe and see where we are headed. Liberal or culturally accomodated Christianity has no problem, but I think free speech in pulpits and the freedom of Christian schools to teach/operate as they choose could very well come under federal control/attack by the middle of the century.

Consider what the environment will be if you go several steps beyond a Hilary Clinton in the White House. And where we are with an eventual highly anti-religious Supreme Court. In my opinion, the pieces will be in place to shut down and jail orthodox Christians within the lifetime of my grandchildren IF a focus issue (homosexuality, free speech in pulpits and schools, government control of schools and homeschools, etc.) comes onto the stage. And at this point, that is what is lacking. There is no issue on which the majority of Christians are not willing to accomodate. So, I couldn’t have imagined Europe where it is now a century ago- particularly with the anti-semitism now emerging again.

Michael: Regarding you second point on Sunday, do you see that type of government sanctioned persecution of Christianity in this country? I, myself, can’t picture it. Although Christianity is, certainly, suffering persecution on a cultural level in this country, I don’t foresee such a blatant violation of the Firs Amendment as government monitored pulpits. As crazy as they sometimes make us, I believe groups like the ACLU would actually become an ally of the Church under such circumstances. If not the ACLU, I certainly believe their Christian counterpart, the ACLJ, would step up and defend our Constitutional rights.

School is out! We are having a “preacher’s camp” here at school, but I have bribed my way out of having to do anything, so look for a bit more blogging the next couple of weeks. Driving my daughter all over America is my second job. Oh, we dealt with the fruit flies. A small potato in a bag hiding in a rarely opened cabinet!! I am also changing my eating plan. After more than two years on the Carb Addicts diet (low carb, high protein, but not as drastic as Atkins) and 60 lbs lost- 20 regained- I am going to something more traditional. Frankly, the fat content in the diet is scaring me. Part of being almost 46. My dad had already had a heart attack by now and he was in much better shape than me, though a smoker. So let’s hope I can make it on a plan that takes away my donuts! I think the discipline I learned on the other program (23 hours a day I was usually perfect) will help me move on to the next stage. Found lots of good help from Dr. Bryant Stamford’s Weight Loss Reader. ALso might want to check out anything on the Mediterranean food pyramid.

Jake’s Question: Why do American Christians make so little impact, and cause so little reaction, in our culture? A darned fine question, with a multi-faceted answer.

1) We are blessed with a Christian heritage that includes religious fredom. This has been a buffer against cultural reaction. Only NOW, with the rise of a new dominant worldview in America, can you begin to picture persecution solely for the sake of faithful Christian living and belief.
2) Watch Europe as it begins to persecute Christianity and you will see the picture of where we are headed. Our children and grandchildren will be faced with some realities we are not faced with, particularly if the liberals retake the White House for the majority of the next 25 years, which seems likely to me. I think we are now feeling the cultural swing towards the embracing of even larger levels of government enforcement of the liberal vision. We are heading towards a new age ascendency that any sort of dogmatism=violence.
3) The European church has been marginilized and dying for years. In contrast, American Christianity is numerically strong and still remarkably theologically vital, though not culturally confrontive. The life and death struggle in denominations like the PCUSA between liberals and conservatives is something you hardly see it all in Europe. (We will see what happens to evangelicals in the CoE now.)
4) What has been missing is the focus issue that demands Christians compromise OR SUFFER. ( Like the imperial cult in the first century for example.) Forced approval of homosexuality could provide such an issue, but we simply are in no immediate danger of being persecuted for being Christians, or for worshipping, running schools, etc. If such a cultural issue emerges, I predict it will be revitalizing for a significant minority of Christians, but the greater challenge will be that the majority of Christians in America will accomodate to ANYTHING. They would accept Oprah as pope and T.D. Jakes as the next Billy Graham. It’s hard to get a reaction out of people with the consistency of jello.
5) In general, we avoid cultural confrontation on the many many many fronts where it is possible, and create our own ghetto culture. But that is another story….

Group: Interesting set of observations from that wandering prophet of all things seeker sensitive, George Barna. These “9 Parting Shots” are apparently what George wants to leave ringing in a our ears as he gives up on changing the church (or something like that. You’ll have to read this article.)

Reading this, I have a number of reactions. Certainly much of this is true or rooted in truth. But the other reaction is confusion. Isn’t this the same George Barna who said “the audience is sovereign?” Isn’t this the same George Barna that was the pope of going to the self-help section of the bookstores to find out what we are preaching next week? (I actually observed this in person one time at a Christian bookstore. Chilling.) Isn’t this the same Barna who has been selling pragmatism to anyone who would listen like vendors sell hot dogs at Coney Island?

Favorite one: Church leaders aren’t leaders. They are teachers, but not leaders. They have no understanding of vision. Translation: You didn’t buy my books.

George- The movement for a theological reformation has been going on in American Christianity since the 60’s. Dozens of people have been sounding the alarm at the abandonment of the Gospel, the boomerizing of the chuch, the assimilation of evangelicals into the culture and the marginalizing of the Bible. I think a lot of those people would be surprised to discover you say you are on their team! The theological reformation they have been tauting has not been as hostile to the structures and form of the church as you have been, and they haven’t been as insistent on using Powerpoint as you have, but the basic critique you are now voicing has been sounding out for a long time. Even those dry as dust Calvinists have been saying the ethnic church is on the way, but they also pointed out that those ethnic chrisitans wanted nothing to do with the Willow Creek model and wanted our respect for the indegenous models they brought. In other words George, the critique has been there on both theological and missiological fronts. Read David Wells. Could I suggest that you see the acceptance of your particular message as a bit more important than others have?

David Head: Would love your thoughts here.

Michael: I think this will put a smile on your face.

07/27/02

Undrafted free-agent H-back Ben Miller, a second lieutenant in the Air Force, must serve a two-year commitment to active duty, beginning Aug. 11. The Columbia Station native and Luteran West graduate is the only player in camp who knows he can’t make the team – until 2004.

Q:Wouldn’t you rather be spending your remaining free time on vacation?

A:If I want to make the team in two years, I think it’s good to be here and leave verybody a good first impression; do as well as I can in the limited reps I’m going to get; shine when I have the opportunity.

Q:You have a higher calling in life than playing football.

A:Oh yeah. There’s no bigger commitment than the commitment to your country that every person in the military has. And if I’m lucky enough to make the team in two years, it’ll be just another way to represent the Air Force.

Q:How big a thrill is it to wear the Browns uniform?

A:It means a lot. I grew up here. I feel I’ve been a Brown my whole life. It’s gonna be an awesome two weeks for me.

- Tony Grossi

ฉ 2002 The Plain Dealer.

Right. I still think it’s silly, though, to expect America not to be selfish. I think we as a country fight our little hearts out everyday to get out from under God’s sovereignty (did you see that?) because we want to do it our way. Of course, find me a country that isn’t soley concerned with it’s own interests. I should have made that point last night.

“Without American blood on the beaches, Reg would be writing me in Japanese.” – Best line ever in the BHT. You always hear about the Frenchies speaking German. Canadians speaking Japanese. hehehehe

MatthewJ and others: My problem with Reg’s analysis is simple. Read my article. I am not defending cabbage subsidies, tariffs on water or any other government or private abuse of capitalism. Reg runs right past what I think is great about America to a purely MARXIST analysis himself- pure economics and nothing but economics. As I have told him, if his excursions into the U.S. have not shown him anything but capitalism, commercialism and economics, he missed the real America. Go rent Doc Hollywood and think about it Reg.

The other point is that his premise is a smear. “Americans are probably the most selfish….” OK, let’s try that with some other groups. “The Canadians are the most arrogant…” “The Arabs are the most dangerous….” “The Blacks are the most lazy…..” Is this supposed to be serious?

And to say that American flesh and blood sacrifice did not provide the decisive difference in WWII is unreal. Particularly in the pacific theater. This is almost ludicrous. Without American blood on the beaches, Reg would be writing me in Japanese.

If Reg would pause from his admonitions that we listen to the lectures of the world bank long enough to read my article he would note that I repeatedly say our country has problems- and the spirit, compassion and capacity to correct them. (And we don’t have a PM who says that religion in public life is the enemy.) “America…God mend thine every flaw.” Problems: we got ‘em….and we are still great.

Well, I might stand in opposition to many others here, but I say welcome our touk-wearing friend to the tavern, eh. While I’m sure that he stepped on a few toes I also think he made some very valid points. I’d particularly like to point out the idea that the US is more socialist than what we like to believe. Government education, graded income tax. I believe Marx supported these ideas. If you want proof, I’ll find it in the Communist Manifesto, but don’t make me hate you ;) I also appreciate the props to the South. Anyway, the only thing I would disagree with is a matter of perspective. This gentleman seems to think that America should be benevolent and selfless. Who could possibly believe that we as a country could act that way? I’m thankful that God allowed me to live in America so that I can take advantage of the good things it has to offer. On the whole, however, we are a country of godless heathens. How many godless heathens care about being selfless? I imagine they are rare. I’m not about to go on a tirade against America but don’t expect the richest and most powerful nation to be anything but selfish and power hungry.

A CANADIAN READER RESPONDS TO MY ARTICLE “Does the Rest of the World Need the Spirit of America?” I have invited the author to read your responses and to participate on the blog. I found this piece to be particularly rich. Perhaps North and South can join together in this cause. What think ye gentlemen?

“I enjoy your web site and most of your thoughts. In your letter to your daughter, however, you missed the point entirely.

I am a Canadian. I am no longer young and I have had many years to travel in, and observe, the US. I also have a daughter who married an American and who lives in Tuscon, AZ. I have three American grandchildren and many American friends. I know many individual Americans who are fine people and a credit to their country. At the same time, I am very aware of American culture, world policy and collective outlook.

What I suspect your daughter was wondering about is not if she and her friends are selfish. I suspect she was wondering if the American culture and mindset is selfish. Perhaps she was wondering why Americans are almost universally disliked around the world. These are not difficult questions, but they are questions that most Americans will never ask themselves. Since your daughter was wise enough to ask, you owe her an answer.

In short, the answer is “Yes, Americans are probable the most selfish people to ever hold a power position in the history of the world”

You don’t like me saying that. And perhaps you will not even consider the possibility that I am correct. But there are several billion people in the world that see America that way.

There are a great many things about the USA that are good and worth copying. There are also a number of very unattractive things in the USA that are impacting the rest of the world. The US attitude is, and always has been, that your way is the best way and no other opinions are welcome. And the US is perfectly willing to impose these things on the world, like a school yard bully, whether the world wants them or not. I will give you some examples.

Your government has recently put in place farm subsidies that are obscene in their magnitude. Not only are these subsidies costing US taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, the direct impact will be that Canadian farmers, as well as farmers from many other countries, will face bankruptcy. No other nation can begin to match the subsidy largess of the US. This is socialist madness that makes even your best friends shake their heads in wonder. You may say that the US has the right to do what they wish inside their own borders. Yes, but your farmers are now shipping this subsidized produce all over the world. Canada is by far the largest trading partner the US deals with and we have had a trust relationship for many years. Your government has just destroyed that trust. You shout about your freedoms from the roof tops, and I have heard endlessly how Americans think of Canada as a socialist country, but the truth is that the US is a much more socialized nation than Canada is. While Canada has been attempting to end all subsidies to farmers, and are currently at a fraction of US subsidies, your government moved the goal posts in exactly the opposite direction.

The US put massive import tariffs on steel and softwood lumber. This was not done because of any unfair trade practices in the producing nations. It was done because some very powerful lobby groups made a case before your politicians and it suited the current protectionist position of the US government.. In the case of steel tariffs, the US collected over two hundred million dollars from supplier nations. You might think that the US taxpayers would benefit from this, but they did not. The money was given to
the US steelmakers. This provides the US steelmakers with the capital to move into the world market and buy up their competition. The rest of the world looks on, in awe, at such self serving selfishness. Even the world trade organization has said this is not fair trade practice, but the US does what it wants. We could talk about softwood lumber, fisheries, fresh water, agriculture, or many other matters and the result would be the same. The US, as a nation, is not content with owning most of the wealth of the world – they want it all, and it does not matter who is hurt in the pursuit.

You talk about your freedoms and your ability to choose your leaders, but your most powerful people in Washington are not elected. You elect a president and he chooses whoever he wants to fill these very powerful positions. Our government is a long way from perfect but we really do elect our leaders.

You discuss your bizarre medical industry endlessly. In every visit we make to the US, the subject of medical is being discussed. Because Canada has a national medical insurance program (with many built in flaws) we are accused again of being socialist. But I can go to any doctor in Canada without the permission of the insurance company and I can take the required treatment and stay in hospital as long as necessary, without worrying if my insurance will run out. In the US the number one factor in personal bankruptcy is medical bills. If this is freedom, please do not export it to the rest of the world.

You brag about your freedom to own a gun, but you lock yourselves inside your homes in fear. It is much more difficult to own a gun in Canada but I walk the streets of the largest city with no fear at all. The last time I looked it up, Washington, DC, had more murders than all of Canada. That is a freedom you are welcome to keep to yourself.

You told your daughter that the US had to fight to free Europe. This is only partially true. While the US put up a great effort, it was only after they stayed out of both world wars, selling billions of dollars worth of arms, sometimes to both sides, as long as possible. Canada was at war for three years before the US joined in. Per capita, the Canadian effort was greater than the US effort. The US effort was not so much the manpower as it was the manufacturing ability. No nation can match the US manufacturing sector. In your civil war (which was about state rights more than slavery) the North won because they had the manufacturing ability. The south simply ran out of
“stuff”. Whether ships or guns or airplanes, the US is able to manufacture more than anyone else. That was your main contribution to the war effort, and it was a much needed contribution.

In current peacekeeping efforts, the US lags far behind Canada and many other world countries.

Well, although I could go on and on, that’s enough. The US is a long ways from perfect and if you wanted to work on one national project, you could do no better than to work on the world selfishness issue. The US would not be greatly damaged if they left a little for the rest of the world to enjoy.

We are still good neighbors and I (and we) stand with you in matters of military and terrorism. Canada has always stepped to the plate when there was a military job to do. I expect we always will. But you could become a little easier to love if you would learn something about the rest of the world and, perhaps, work on that selfishness thing. As far as Canada is concerned, we don’t want anything of yours, we just wish you would quit coveting the things that are ours.”

I thought Minority Report was a good movie, good looking, well acted, but something about the last 30 minutes seemed tacked on. I guess I need to see it again.

Moderator’s cap on: To shorten the load in, I will be deleting several pics and some of the educational articles posted by Bart. No objections on my part to the humor, but I do want readers to find some of the original conversation. I’ve left them up all afternoon so everyone can add them to your collection.

“Southern Gravy Eating Surrender Monkeys”? < shaking of head, shrugging of shoulders >

Just saw “Minorty Report”. Wow, that Philip Dick could write. In spite of the fact that Tom Cruise is in it, Steven Spielberg directed it and John Williams wrote the music, I still give it Two Big Thumbs Up for not being completely predictable. (pun intended)

I’m gonna go find some grub.

You Might be a Yankee If…
1) You think barbecue is a verb meaning “to cook outside.”

2) You think Heinz Ketchup is SPICY!

3) You don’t have any problems pronouncing “Worcestershire sauce”
correctly.

4) For breakfast, you would prefer potatoes au gratin to grits.

5) You don’t know what a moon pie is.

6) You’ve never had grain alcohol.

7) You’ve never, ever, eaten Okra.

8) You eat fried chicken with a knife and fork.

9) You’ve never seen a live chicken, and the only cows you’ve seen are on
road trips.

10) You have no idea what a polecat is.

11) Whenever someone tells an off*color joke about farm animals, it goes
over your head.

12) You don’t see anything wrong with putting a sweater on a poodle.

13) You don’t have bangs.

14) You would rather vacation at Martha’s Vineyard than Six Flags.

15) More than two generations of your family have been kicked out of the
same prep school in Connecticut.

16) You would rather have your son become a lawyer than grow up to get
his own TV fishing show.

17) Instead of referring to two or more people as “y’all,” you call them “you
guys,” even if both of them are women.

18) You don’t think Howard Stern has an accent.

19) You have never planned your summer vacation around a gun*and*knife
show.

20) You think more money should go to important scientific research at
your university than to pay the salary of the head football coach.

21) You don’t have at least one can of WD*40 somewhere around the house.

22) The last time you smiled was when you prevented someone from getting
on An on*ramp on the highway.

23) You don’t have any hats in your closet that advertise feed stores.

24) The farthest south you’ve ever been is the perfume counter at Neiman
Marcus.

25) You call binoculars opera glasses.

26) You can’t spit out the car window without pulling over to the side of the
road and stopping.

27) You would never wear pink or an appliqued sweatshirt.

28) You don’t know what appliqued is.

29) Most of your formative high school sexual experiences took place within
the context of a football game.

30) You don’t know anyone with two first names (i.e. Joe Bob, Billy Bob,
Bubba Kay Bob, Bob Bob)

31) You don’t have doilies, and you certainly don’t know how to make one.

32) You’ve never been to a craft show.

33) You get freaked out when people on the subway talk to you.

34) You can’t do your laundry without quarters.

35) None of your fur coats are homemade.

Battle of the Fragrances

An old woman is riding in an elevator in a very lavish New York building, when a young and beautiful woman gets into the elevator. Smelling of expensive perfume she turns to the old woman and says arrogantly, “Romance” by Ralph Lauren, $150 an ounce!”

Then another young and beautiful woman gets on the elevator, and also very arrogantly turns to the old woman saying, “Chanel No. 5, $200 an ounce. ”

About three floors later, the old woman has reached her destination and is about to get off the elevator. Before she leaves, she looks both beautiful women in the eye, then bends over and farts and says …

“Broccoli. 49 cents a pound.”

Here are two examples of southern leaders. One married a Yankee and one did not. Who was more negatively influenced?

It’s a good thing that I didn’t take her to meet the colonel.

”...and today, I have that little buckeye mounted right over the fireplace. Looks as natural today as he did all those years ago in that parking lot. I hang my shoes on his ears at night.”

Okay…inhale sunshine exhale peace…is everyone feeling more at ease with each other? Good.
MB: That’s cool with us, we only have to put up with their condescending, oh my God they do wear shoes, attitudes for a short time and we get to take their money. Bonus!
Everyone:
Just so you know, I was 18 years old and exiting the K-Mart in Somerset, KY. A black SUV pulls up to the curb and a woman and her 3 kids get out. One of the kids (Obviously the Rhodes scholar of the group), grabs her mothers arm and says (while pointing at me), “Look Mom, they do wear shoes!” the license tag said Ohio. The really sad thing is that I know that this attitude exists in all reality throughout the north. So you will forgive me if I seem a bit defensive.

I can’t either. Something to do with God creating the soul maybe? Tertullian? I dunno. I may recall it with some searching.

Michael, what was the term in #3? I can’t remember. Seriously.

FAMOUS BHT DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE TURNED INTO NAME-CALLING OF SOURCES (in order of their importance.)
4. Rob and Michael go at it over CCM
3. A discussion over a theological term that none of us understood. And even after we channeled the spirit of Karl Barth and Rob played golf with R.C. Sproul, we still didn’t understand it, until finally, I found something about it in an ancient theological dictionary, but heck, even after I read it, I was still clueless.
2. Seven Day Creationism
1. The violent Tendencies of certain Scottish clans, who I will not name for fear of my cheap English life.

FAMOUS BHT DISCUSSIONS WHERE, DAMN IT, I WAS RIGHT.
2. Calvinism
1. Whether to delete a screaming woman.

BTW, Bart. The reason so many people “vacation” in the south is because they know they’ll be going “home” to the north :-)

Michael: Thank you.

The Tenth Amendment states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Thus, any action by the States specifically prohibited by the Constitution is a violation thereof. In looking to the Constitution for that which is prohibited by the States, we find that Article I, Section 10 reads in part: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” By seceding from the Union the southern States violated this prohibition. The Union had no choice but to take it back. Thus the War of the Southern Gravy Eating Surrender Monkeys was on.

MODERATOR’S HAT ON: MBirch’s observation on sources reminded me that we probably should state in the rules that when a discussion gets down to hurling privy sources at one another or questioning the integrity of sources, we have reached a certain limit, and then the ridicule of sources is the next step. We have seen this in previous theological discussions and the party involved was properly razzed for referring to secret sources known only to himself and a small band of dwarves. So…since we are traversing some historical ground here, let me just gentle admonish all our historians that you are probably as prone as us theological types to reverence/despise sources for your own reasons, so let us kindly acknowledge that the debate is not taking place in an atmosphere of agreed upon source material, but in contention over the interpretation of events by historians. Now, go back to shootin’.

FIVE THINGS THE SOUTH HAS THAT ALL TRULY CULTURED PEOPLE NEED.
1. Barbecue
2. Women
3. Whiskey
4. Tobacco
5. Good Huntin’ Dawgs

FIVE THINGS THE NORTH HAS NO SANE PERSON WOULD WANT
1. Indiana
2. Scandanavian food
3. Large Women
4. Polka
5. Whole towns devoted to baskets

Jack: I’m sorry I’m not privy to the secret information you must poses (The data suggest, (although they do not prove), that the attack was provoked.) Whose data might that be? Southern historians?

Furthermore, it was never my intention to “prove” anything to you, Jack. Argument cannot prove anything. It can only persuade. And, on that point, I must agree with the adage, “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.” Maybe that should be our motto around here. I’ll admit that it certainly describes me.

You know, I kind of get the sense that you Yankees have an unbelievable subconscious urge to rationalize away the evil perpetrated within the WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION. Guys, own the mistakes of the north and move on. Face it you are the products of a northern culture that has always envied the south. Otherwise, Florida wouldn’t be the #1 vacation spot in the galaxy.

I am sure that….
-There is no other war in history that continues to provoke such discussions as the American Civil War. Astonishing really.
-Everyone involved was a sinner.
-Both sides had political justicfication for what they did which is rejected by the other side.
-The average guy, like in all wars, was fighting for his friends, family and neighbors, and to get home.
-Slavery would have eventually ceased, but the suffering in the meantime would have been substantial.
-The amount of violence used to subdue the south was, eventually, excessive. But the amount of violence needed to win the war is always the same: whatever it takes. After that, the real damage is done.
-Our country could not be what it has been in the 20th century, especially in WWII and the Cold War, without the victory to preserve the Union. All historical events being the same, I believe the case is strong that either Hitler or the Soviet Union would have achieved considerable advantage over a divided country.
-The heritage of civil rights in America owes its existence to our founding documents and to this great struggle. From both sides, from both sets of values, came the heritage of freedom for all Americans that we have today.
-When I originally used the phrase “war of Northern Aggression” I was being a bit frivolous. I didn’t mean to start a full scale re-enactment. ;-)
-You guys are all pretty smart.

MikeB: Give your reading of the constitutions case against secession.

Mike B: Your points about Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska, straight out of USDA Certified 100% reliable government-school history textbooks, are noted and given full weight. And since the official government-friendly version of the story found in government school textbooks is certain to support the government-approved version of the story, what other conclusion could you possibly reach?

I do not in any way mean to suggest that slavery was not a hot topic at the time. Of course it was highly divisive, but no more so than it was in Great Britain, Portugal, the Netherlands or any other European country that had thrown off the corrosive habit of slavery. Yet they all were able to do it without recourse to war. Why was the US different?

The facts you presented are not in dispute. But neither do they disprove my assertion as to the chief cause and chief aim of the war.

Furthermore, it is disingenuous of you to state only half the story of Fort Sumter. The data suggest, (although they do not prove), that the attack was provoked. From a political standpoint, the South did the North a favour by firing the first shot. Given the aims stated by Lincoln before Ft. Sumter and the actions taken by him afterwards, it is no stretch to conclude that the attack was consciously, intentionally provoked by the Northern forces. Does that mean I justify the attack? Of course not. But I certainly reject your assertion that Ft. Sumter proves that the war was one of “Southern Aggression”.

For a similar reason, I refuse to use a label for the war that is both inaccurate and misleading. I use the name “War of Northern Aggression” because it is accurate. Until someone can convince me otherwise, that is the name I will use. If that offends your sensibilities, then perhaps your sensibilities need offending.

This was no “civil war”. A civil war occurs when two or more parties vie for control of the government. The southern states didn’t want control of the government, they wanted independence from it. The Southern states seceeded from the union exactly as the colonies had seceeded from the Empire 80 years previously. The main difference between the two events is that the lawless despot won the latter war.

Jack: In Aug 1820 Missouri sought to be admitted to the Union. At the time, the Union was devided equally amongst slave and free states, and a debate raged in the US Congress as to whether Missouri would be admitted to the Union as slave or free. James Tallmadge of New York proposed that Missouri be admitted to the Union only if it agreed to prohibit the importation of slaves. Since Maine was also seeking statehood (certain to be free), those who favored slave states believed the scales would be tipped too far in favor of free states. A compromise was reached in which Missouri would be admitted to the Union without forbidding slavery, however, slavery would be prohibited in the remainder of the Louisiana Purchase north of 36à¸?30’N lat. (the southern boundary of Missouri). Fast-forward 34 years, and now Kansas and Nebraska are seeking admission to the Union. Again, the issue of whether these states would be free or slave was of grave importance. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed in Jan. 1854, which contained the provision that the question of slavery should be left to the decision of the territorial settlers themselves. This provision caused both pro and anti slavery forces to descend upon the area in an attempt to influence the “decision” to remain free or slave. The primary issue in both the Missouri compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act was slavery, not sovereignty. To suggest that slavery was little more that a footnote to the issue of state sovereignty is a misstatement of historical fact.

Furthermore, your insistent reference to the Civil War as the “War of Northern Aggression” suffers from a lack of historical support as well. Let’s look at the timeline of events:

Dec 20, 1860 – South Carolina secedes from the Union. Followed within two months by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas.

Feb 9, 1861 – The Confederate States of America is formed (in violation of Art. I. Sec. 10, cl. 1 of the United States Constitution) with Jefferson Davis as president.

April 12, 1861 – Confederates under Gen. Pierre Beauregard attack Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina.

Therefore, if you wish to name the war based on aggression, it would more properly be called the War of Southern Aggression. Since such statements serve little purpose, other than inflammatory rhetoric, why don’t we compromise and just call it the American Civil War.

Geez, Chip, what’s in the air out in Delaware? You are attacking points I didn’t make and defending positions I didn’t attack. Are you responding to some other Jack whose posts are invisible to me? C’mon, is that the best you can do?

General Forrest – Are you saying that because the South had some leaders who were godless morons, my position is indefensible? If so, then your logic is fatally flawed and you will be hoist upon your own petard.

Stonewall Jackson – What is the context of your quote? Was he speaking as a commander of troops who were defending their homes, land and families, or was he merely spouting off as a private citizen hell-bent on murder? Do I really need to point out the difference that context makes? Are you familiar with the doctrine of “Just War”? Are you a pacifist? Do you have a scriptural foundation for your position? Jackson knew the scripture inside out, upside down and backwards. In his personal life he demonstrated a remarkable personal holiness and a tremendous attitude of service. In short, his life reflected the truths he proclaimed. His conduct as a leader of men was exemplary – and consistent with the scriptures. My point about Jackson and Lee is that the way these men conducted their lives was thoroughly consistent with the truths they proclaimed.

Reconstruction – The period of “Reconstruction” was a horror for everyone in the South, black, white and red. And it was an utterly unnecessary horror. If the war had been about ending slavery, then maybe – by a very long stretch of the imagination – just maybe the price of Reconstruction was worth it all. But the war was not about slavery. The existence of ignorant, violent racists in the south does not prove that the war was fought to free the slaves. I get the sense from your comments that you imagine every white person south of the Mason-Dixon to have been either a Klansman or a sympathiser. I hope I’m wrong, but if that is true, then you have accepted an appalling stereotype and betray your own bigotry.

I have one simple assertion – the War of Northern Aggression was fought to settle the question of sovereignty: are the states sovereign over the federal government, or vice versa? The issue of slavery was entirely incidental to that war. Do you possess evidence to refute that? Based on your off-the-wall responses, it appears to me that you are attempting to muddy the waters. And if that IS what you are doing, then I am forced to conclude that you do not currently possess any evidence that can convincingly refute my argument.

---

On an entirely separate note, I must correct myself. Somewhere in the past few days I incorrectly referred to the Great English Civil War as “the Glorious Revolution”. I knew when I wrote it that it didn’t sound right, but in the heat of the moment I didn’t check myself. The Glorious Revolution actually occurred in 1688, nearly 40 years after the Civil War, when William of Orange – at the request of Parliament – assumed the throne in the place of his father-in-law, James II.

I will consider myself slapped with a marlin.

This is fun. A BHT squall and I’m not in it. Chip’s problem will be that he is a non-drinker, and will remain sober throughout. Go git ‘em Blue Hens.

Tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. I am free from summer school. I gave my finals today so that the kids can turn in their research and projects, then we can watch movies and eat for the two hours in the morning. I think its been a good term, but the class was too big. I did meet a really sweet Korean girl whose parents are Buddhists, but she became a Christian in the Phillipines and now she will do two years with us. A wonderful Christian young lady. Such a contrast to our America girls, but our kids just can’t see the contrast. It astonishes me.

I get to loaf Friday, then pick my daughter up from her five weeks at Governor’s Scholar and deliver my son for two weeks of camp. Somewhere in there I am going to hit the Louisville bookstores. Then Monday we have a preacher’s conference here at OBI. Last year I was on the prgram, but this year I am out of the picture entirely. Tuesday I eat with MatthewJ at 1:30 at the best Egyptian pizza in Lexington, then Thursday I take my daughter to Lexington to spend a few days with her boyfriends family. Isn’t having kids just great? Gotta buy tires, gotta do IM, gotta do Oneidaschool.org, gotta start getting ready for the fall term August 18, with four high school Bible classes and two adult classes, one with the Ravi Z book “Jesus Among Other Gods” and the other with R.C.’s “The Love of God.” I would love to hit a couple of days at a monastery before schools starts.

D & D: It’s a game. And I have to agree with RonH that bright kids who enjoy this sort of stuff are constantly stereotyped. I will ask a few questions to make sure she isn’t in on some obsessive level, then I’ll tell her to take it home and keep her mouth shut around people who believe the imagination is property of the devil.

Chip: Your defense of the “Civil War” comes right out of a Government-approved, NEA certified textbook. What are you reading, man? Where do you get these silly ideas?

At the risk of repeating myself, every civilised nation in the world came to the conclusion that slavery was immoral and had to be ended, and each was able to abolish it without warfare. Every one except – according to popular legend – the U.S. Why is that? Why are so many people so utterly incapable of grasping the proven fact that abolishing slavery did not require a war? England did it, France did it, Portugal did it, the Lowlands did it. It didn’t require a war.

And it certainly didn’t require total war. It didn’t require the utter devastation of Southern cities. It didn’t require the scorched-earth tactics of Sherman. It didn’t require the raping, looting and pillaging of Reconstruction. I assert that The War of Northern Aggression was not about abolishing slavery. It was about preserving the union, full stop. I call as a witness for the prosecution, the dishonourable Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. Lincoln, what is your reason for fighting this war?

From Lincoln’s letter to the New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley.

I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;

Chip, you are simply wrong that the war was fought for “states’ rights to own slaves”. You appear to be simply regurgitating the propaganda that was probably spoon-fed to you in a government classroom. I am attacking your silly ideas, Chip, not you. But your assertions about the war and its results are simply laughable.

No one can authoritatively say what would have happened had the South won the war. As Aslan says, we are never told what would have happened. We only know what did happen. And what did happen is that the federal government suborned the authority of the individual states. The right to determine their own political affiliations was violently stripped from the states – the exact same right they asserted and fought for in 1776. Read the contemporaneous documents and you will see that the southern states believed that the 10th amendment to the Consitution meant exactly what it said. Read Lincoln’s words and watch his actions and you will see that he considered the 10th amendment, (amongst others), meaningless.

The great generals of the South were men of character such as we seldom see today. Many of them vigorously opposed slavery. All of them saw what happened in Europe and no doubt were convinced that the immoral slave trade and slavery could be abolished in America the same way it wa abolished in England – through faith, patience, prayer and perseverance. Yet they embraced the cause of the Southern states and fought vigorously to protect and defend them against the armies of the north. Were these just a bunch of deceived yokels, the 19th century version of Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert? I don’t think so, brother. Read the writings of Stonewall Jackson or Robert E. Lee and then tell me where today you ever see such examples of Godly masculinity.

Eric: I had a huge long response to your latest post that I had to edit because – while I was writing, Michael responded to the slavery question scripturally. That’s all I was after – a scriptural response to the question rather than just a bunch of opinions.

Man, you guys kept me up way too late. Oh, and Michael, for the record:

1. Whoever the Raiders are playing
2. The 1977 Trail Blazers – a team that was truly far more than the sum of its parts
3. Yeah, but there will be fewer teams and fewer gazillionaires
4. Nope, bad knees (and getting worse)
5. Wow, that’s a tough one. You teach in a Baptist High School – boarding school, right? Do you know the kid? I know with my own children, many times the response required depends on the child. Son-number-one generally needs something subtle – like a sledgehammer to the forehead. Daughter-number-two on the other hand seldom requires more than a stern look from me. I’d have a difficult time saying unequivocally that DND was evil, but it very well could be for that particular kid. If I had to answer immediately, I would echo Matthew Johnson – “go outside and play”.

I apologise for the verbosity. I didn’t have time to make it any shorter.

The article on “Slave” from Fausett’s Bible Dictionary. (Bold type mine)

Hired service was little known anciently; slavery was the common form of service. But among the Hebrews the bond service was of a mild and equitable character; so much so that `ebed, “servant,” is not restricted to the bond servant, but applies to higher relations, as, e.,g., the king’s prime minister, a rich man’s steward, as Eliezer (Gen. 15:2; :2), God’s servant (Dan. 9:17). Bond service was not introduced by Moses, but being found in existence was regulated by laws mitigating its evils and restricting its duration. Man stealing was a capital crime (Deut. 24:7); not only stealing Israelites, but people of other nations (Exo. 21:16). The Mosaic law jealously guarded human life and liberty as sacred. Masters must treat Hebrew servants as hired servants, not with rigour, but with courteous considerateness as brethren, and liberally remunerate them at the close of their service (Deut. 15:12-18; Lev. 25:39-41). Exo. 21:2 provided that no Israelite bound to service could be forced to continue in it more than six years. Leviticus supplements this by giving every Hebrew the right to claim freedom for himself and family in the jubilee year, without respect to period of service, and to recover his land. This was a cheek on the oppression of the rich (Jer. 34:8-17). Property in foreign slaves might be handed down from father to son, so too the children born in the house (Gen. 14:14; 17:12). Some were war captives (Num. :6,7,9; Deut. 20:14); but Israelites must not reduce to bondage Israelites taken in war (2 Chr. 28:8-15). The monuments give many illustrations of the state of the Israelites themselves reduced to bondage by foreign kings to whom they were delivered for their rebellion. Others were enslaved for crime (Exo. 22:3, like our penal servitude), or bought from foreign slave dealers (Lev. 25:44), so they were his property (Exo. 21:21). The price was about 30 or 40 shekels (Exo. 21:32; Lev. 27:3,4; Zec. 11:12,13; Mt. 26:15). The slave was encouraged to become a proselyte (Exo. 12:44). He might be set free (Exo. :3,20,21,26,27). The law guarded his life and limbs. If a married man became a bondman, his rights to his wife were respected, she going out with him after six years’ service. If as single he accepted a wife from his master, and she bore him children, she and they remained the master’s, and he alone went out, unless from love to his master and his wife and children he preferred staying (Exo. 21:6); then the master bored his ear (the member symbolizing willing obedience, as the phrase “give ear” implies) with an awl, and he served for ever, i.e. until jubilee year (Lev. 25:10; Deut. 15:17); type of the Father’s willing Servant for man’s sake (compare Isa. 50:5; Ps. 40:6-8; Heb. 10:5; Phil. 2:7). A Hebrew sold to a stranger sojourning in Israel did not go out after six years, but did at the year of jubilee; meantime he might be freed by himself or a kinsman paying a ransom, the object of the law being to stir up friends to help the distressed relative. His brethren should see that he suffered no undue rigour, but was treated as a yearly hired servant (Lev. 25:47-55). Even the foreigner, when enslaved, if his master caused his loss of an eye or tooth, could claim freedom (Exo. 21:6; Lev. 19:20). He might be ransomed. At last he was freed at jubilee. His murder was punished by death (Lev. 24:17,22; Num. 35:31-33). He was admitted to the spiritual privileges of Israel: circumcision (Gen. 17:12), the great feasts, Passover, etc. (Exo. 12:43; Deut. 16:10; 29:10-13; 31:12), the hearing of the law, the Sabbath and jubilee rests. The receiver of a fugitive slave was not to deliver him up (Deut. 23:15,16). Christianity does not begin by opposing the external system prevailing, but plants the seeds of love, universal brotherhood in Christ, communion of all in one redemption from God our common Father, which silently and surely undermines slavery. Paul’s sending back Onesimus to Philemon does not sanction slavery as a compulsory system, for Onesimus went back of his own free will to a master whom Christianity had made into a brother. In 1 Cor. 7:21-24 Paul exhorts slaves not to be unduly impatient to cast off even slavery by unlawful means (1 Pet. 2:13-18), as Onesimus did by fleeing. The precept (Greek) “become not ye slaves of men” implies that slavery is abnormal (Lev. 25:42). “If called, being a slave, to Christianity, be content; but yet, if also (besides spiritual freedom) thou canst be free (bodily, a still additional good, which if thou canst not attain be satisfied without, but which if offered despise not), use the opportunity of becoming free rather than remain a slave.” “Use it” in verse 23 refers to freedom, implied in the words just before, “be made free” (2 Pet. 2:19).

ChipY: Don’t think I have officially said welcome back, but WELCOME BACK and I am excited about your new opportunities coming this fall. (Chip is actually going to teach history- among other things. Actually using his college major. What a concept.) I love this quote: “The fact of the matter is that a large number of people who came were whores, in debt, drunks and ruffians whom the English didn’t want in their prisons anymore and so they shipped them off to the colonies.” Looks like you’ve been up the Spencer family tree. Thanks for the dose of reality, since those of us who are Christians do forget that we have tended towards our own mythology of Zion. (Pesky Mennonites.)

EricR: First, no one has argued the point FOR slavery. Jack, already an admitted heavy customer at several Pubs, floated the comment in a larger discussion about the Civil war. Second, the immorality of Southern slavery is beyond question. In every respect it was a chapter in human history to be loathed and cannot be dignified, in my opinion. However, slavery has been a fact of human history, and The OT and the NT accomodate to it in some way. I mean, look at Philemon. If ever there was an opportunity to say abolish the institution in the name of Christ, this was it. But it doesn’t happen. One writer has said that for Jesus to have preached the abolition of slavery would have been an anarchist message in his culture. So Christianity does carry this baggage that has to be clarified. Is slavery scripturally allowable in certain circumstances (economic), much like polygamy seems to be allowed? Or does a proper interpretation of the Bible rule it out, even if it was a part of the cultures in which the Bible was written?

I agree with those who say that the application of the Biblical ethic will inevitably lead to the eradication of all forms of slavery (and polygamy, etc.) The question si how to bring that ethic to bear? Wilberforce is the ideal model, in my opinion. So the only discussion I can see is how was slavery thought about by The Apostle Paul, and how can we clearly articulate a view that goes beyond this to the ethic of the Kingdom of God, where there is no slave or free?

Jack, put down that beer and get in here. ;-)

The ISBE article on slavery, which will be as good a Biblical survey as you will find on the net.

I am a little dumbfounded that we are even having this conversation. Can anyone really say that holding an innocent person against his or her will and doing with him or her whatever you want, including raping them and beating them and forcing them to work and slave for you, is NOT immoral? It seems that maybe the reading of slave narratives is in order (try a little Frederick Douglass or Harriet Jacobs for starters). I know the beating and raping and such did not go on in all cases, but even then, you’re talking about owning a human being as property. I just can’t get my mind around any thinking person arguing that this is at all just and right.
Why does this seem so surreal? I am almost speechless. I feel like I’m trying to argue that water is wet and snow is cold. Sheesh.

That rarest of recent events, the IM update: with an article on SEX ED, or more exactly growing up without it. Read, remember, smile and tell your stories.