I love Matt Labash, regular good guy at the Weekly Standard. This piece reviewing the latest Michael Moore Horror flick is great writing, funny and infuriating at the same time. I nominate Moore for worst liberal of the last fifty years.

Fascinating articulation of the Muslim view of Western Civilization and its failure. Do We Substantially Agree?

The Godless are in D.C. this weekend.

The latest on the “Hell House” movement, including incorporating 911 into the show. Sick showmanship.

Does anyone other than me get weary of hearing the constant breaking of the 3rd commandment by Christians everytime ANYTHING slightly out of the ordinary happens?

From Gary Wisz’s good piece at RM: “All Hallows Eve, preceding All Souls Day, was a remembrance, not only of the dead who died in the faith, but of the “happy” fact that they died not in vain but in Christ, that Christ’s Kingdom is victorious, and that we need not fear Satan and his lies anymore. One would never know this from churches that sequester their young behind church hall doors to bob for apples and pin the tail on the donkey on October 31, as though waiting for an evil wind to pass. But costumes are not celebrating anything other than that we’re not afraid anymore of the dark or the things that slink in it. In fact, we can even dress like those things to show that their dominion is vanquished and laugh at them. Why, even our children can! The notion of a child dressed as a ghoul ringing a doorbell and saying, “Trick or treat” (as though to give the householder the option) is actually pretty comic, but the response is also quite a Christian gesture: “Treat.” Those parading in celebration of vanquished darkness, by mockingly dressing like it, mockingly pose a threat (“Trick”) but are given something (“Treat”) ”

Christian good cheer includes cigars and scotch, right? I think Spurgeon would agree. I read somewhere that someone once confronted Spurgeon about his cigars and Spurgeon said that he’d quit if he ever smoked too many. The person asked him what was too many to which Spurgeon replied, “Two at a time.” Gotta love that guy.

The Announcement is on the sidebar. (The current e-mail list are those who have posted in the last 30 days.)

Gregory/Eric: You two quit acting like me ;) Save it for a serious discussion, like who won the civil war. (duck…...”crash”)

Richard: The questions are thought provoking, but somewhat biased. There are many Christians who have good relationships with lost people. No brag, but I am one of them. I think that is how I have managed to do my job and do it well here at OBI the last decade. I work at not treating lost people like they are a disease to be avoided. I genuinely like them, often better than I like my fellow Christians. But, the fact is that there are some areas where I am not going to share activities with my lost friends, and they wouldn’t want me to. I think Jesus was popular with people because he was loving, patient, fun, generous, a good listener, caring, etc etc etc. I also think he was different from those religious people who wouldn’t get down on the level with regular people. If we are like this, people will like us. But at the same time, as Gregory has pointed out, there were other areas were unbelievers did not like Jesus. I doubt that they really wanted him to use their profanity, visit prostitutes, be violent, steal, etc. And to that extent his light and ours- will cause a reaction in the darkness. I think Jesus responded to people as precious images of God, people of value and persons worthy of respect and compassion. Christians can do the same, but no one could relate like Jesus. I think most unbelievers avoid Christians because 1) they think we want it that way 2) we do want it that way or 3) they want it that way. If we would break the stereotypes, we would get a different reaction.

Richard: Some answers:

1. Which sinners? There were plenty of sinners that did not want to be around Jesus. Look at the Pharisees, who could not stand the light of Jesus shining on their sin. Overall, they were in the majority in Roman province of Judea during the first century. As such, it is not a fair argument, unless you think that all sinners of today fit in the first category. As far as people not wanting to be around Christians, I think some of it is well deserved.
   
2. Which sinners? There are plenty today that have problem with us.
   

Some people dislike Christianity as they see it as hypocritical, but fail to realize that everything man touches is hypocritical. It is only God that can supply truth, not his followers. These people dislike God when they see His followers, but cannot see it in themselves. It largely comes down to what you believe in. If you believe in the “pro choice” movement, you see Christians who protest as the same as people who shoot abortion doctors as the same people who attend church. It is quite easy to stereotype those whom you disagree with. I think Megan pointed it out best with her comment that she used to see Christian Conservatives as “gun-toting, Planned Parenthood protesting, Focus On The Family funded loudmouths who take their assumptions about life into politics”. Many hold all Christians with such disdain, and it is a stereotype based on the actions of a few that claim to be Christians (some of which are, and others of which aren’t—only God can truly tell the difference).

Other people do not believe in Jesus, which is often prompted (ala Carl Sagan) by the fact that Christianity does not fit in their lifestyle. They have disdain for Christians as they see them as fools.

Anything you hold in low regard, you tend to move further and further away from. You will continue to dislike the thing you disagree with more and more, unless someone shows you the light. In this case, it takes God Himself, through the Spirit, to make a change.

Lesson: Don’t strip in an airport if you are ticked off about the security search. Only strip down when asked to.

Michael: I think it is unfortunate that they did not stand up for their principles earlier. I think one key issue here is the boy’s public argument (albeit within the group) against excluding athiests. He forced the issue when it would have been wiser to back down. The BSA leader was incorrect in ever letting him get to this point, but we do often turn away as long as things are not public (like your Lesbian in the church story). Principles should be adhered to across the board, which is apparently not the case here. The problem now is the case is public, which means it is a hill that the BSA will die on. They cannot back down, as it could have negative consequences in future legal matters.

Jim: I do not see a major definition shift here, although some do shift what can constitute racist. I believe there have always been racists practices, meaning that race is involved in the decision process (ie, hiring a quota, et al), and racists, people that practice racisom. Looking at the definition on m-w.com, you can see that racist can be used both as an adjective and a noun. Is Planned Parenthood racist? If the results (ie, hindsight) is the measure, it is an easy argument. As a larger percentage of blacks get abortions than whites, the quota system is in place. But, to use the quota system for causation is a racist methodology, so it is a razor thin distinction, using causation alone. If the intent of the founder was to have blacks aborted to avoid having them take over society, then her intent was definitely racially motivated, which makes her a racist and the initial intent racist.

Okay, here is a firebomb. AIDS is a curse against gays. Let’s examine this statement. If God were truly to put out a curse on homosexuality, is he not perfect enough to single out homosexuals. Look at Sodom! He took the one righteous family out and destroyed the rest, so he has ways of separating the wheat and tare. I won’t get into the debate of whether or not AIDS is a curse on immorality, as I just do not have enough energy at this time.

Eric: I believe the “anything not of faith” is apt. It is a standard we can never hope to achieve, so I do not attempt to hold anyone to it, as I cannot hold to it myself. God holds us to a much higher standard than we can ever attain. As there are elements in Harry Potter that fall outside of God’s perfect plan, I do not have a problem with parents keeping their children from it. I know people that edit Disney cartoons.

I never stated that Lewis and Tolkein’s works, as they were Christian, are sanctified. We have had this stupid thread before, so you should know where I stand rather than blindly arguing against small stones. I did state that there are some elements in Tolkein’s works that differentiate it from Harry Potter, but never that Tolkein’s works should be seen as exemplary Christian prose. You have completely mischaracterized my post in this matter. I purposefully kept it short, as we have jumped on this stupid topic one to many times, but apparently I should be more verbose to avoid mischaricterization.

As for parent’s choice, where does the vitriole come from here Eric? The statement was not out to attack anyone’s position, but was simply put out as a feeling. Oh, I guess I should keep from writing anything that is not part of the debate at large.

As for the scout: Yes, the scouts should have kept to principles from the beginning. I think it was the argument between the leader and this boy about athiesm that got the ball rolling. And, I am sure that the scouts cannot back down now, or their next visit to the Supreme Court will not be as friendly as there will be a major precedent. As such, they are both on a hill that they are willing to die on. As for the time issue, I was sincerely asking a question. The right thing to do, according to the principles of scouting, was to oust him immmediately. They did not. Now that it is public, the amount of work is inconsequential. If the scout leader brought this matter to the public, he should also be ousted, as he has not shown good sense and proper leadership. If the boy brought the matter public, it is much like throwing down a gauntlet in medieval times, and he needs to learn a bit about proper decorum. Yes, the scouts should have responded from the get go. The boy should not have argued about athiesm with his scout leader. Now, perhaps the scout leader should have dropped the debate, but I am not sure if he was there from the get go. It should have never been brought public, as it creates a situation in which no-one wins. There is a lot of stupidity going on; I just think we should hold back our opinions until all of the facts are out, as we do not know much about who knew what, when and the actual course of events.

Here are two questions. I think I can answer them both pretty cogently if they are asked one at a time. But when they are asked together I get all flustered by the paradox.

Q. # 1) Why did sinners want to be around Jesus but they don’t want to be around us?

Q. # 2) Why did sinners crucify Jesus but have no problem with us?

I’d really be interested in your answers

P.S. As one of the newer participants I should tell you that I am usually much more ready to ask questions like this than I am at supplying answers

Michael S: You know, Hitler said people lost, too. :)

MS: what you are looking for is the complete elimination and irradication of al middle management. I’m right there with you.

Jake: George Grant has slammed dunked PP in Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood. His work is well known in pro-life circles, and is obviously controversial, but won’t be faulted for being less than thorough. But it is not particularly arguable that the early vision of Sanger was to limit the size of the non-white population. OK, I will grant that the organization has morphed from that nepharious objective to the more straightforward killing of all unborn children (PP never saw an abortion it didn’t like.) This is an organization that has presided over any number of moral catastophes, most notably the distribution of birth control in the public school, the disempowering of parents and the blatant greedy accumulation of billions of public money. Others have stated the case. History can’t be ignored, but Black Democrats are ignoring PPs history. I have a feeling the left wouldn’t be quite so generous if an organization that supported slavery was part of the mainstream of the GOP. Of course, The Democrats have a problem there as well. Irony of ironies.

Gregory/Eric: Eric is exactly correct. They allowed this guy to pass through the ranks of the BSA, no doubt pushing him to Eagle. I know the scouts and if this guy isn’t a church goer it is a matter of interest. They knew this before he started the Eagle program. (1,000 hours of community service and NOW they bag him??) I have worked with many Eagle projects and this is no secret. Don’t paint the kid as being secretive. The BSA is saying “Mother Nature will do.” What’s up with that? They do have the right to limit membership at the outset or at any reasonable point, and they also have the responsibility to be consistent in the best interests of the young man. They stayed with the kid hoping for the best maybe? And now they make him the bad guy? Someone up there in Seattle was looking to be the big man, and they messed up. As I said, BSA passed on this with two Eagles in 98. What’s up with this now?

HP is about magic like Narnia is about animal behavior.

Ever go to your boss and get something approved- Then when you do it, he doesn’t remember it and gets steamed up? Is there a name for this? There are two parts of my job I need to get rid of, and if I can’t delegate them out I am going to mentally degenerate badly. One especially is just about more than I can face or think about, and it is unfair to the many people who count on this to be done right. Matter of prayer. Doing what I have to do but have do love or energy or vision for is very hard for me.

ScottW: You mentioned Hitler. You lose.

For any OBI readers: “Oh Martha!!! What a GOOSE!!!”

The announcement is going on board after dinner. Maybe 7 or 8.

Jake, modern usage of the term “racist” tend to refer to actions rather than actors. “Racism” has become a category that applies to the results of actions, rather than the intent behind the actions. Thus, if hiring practices tend to favor whites over blacks, we have “racism” regardless of whether anyone can establish that the individuals involved in hiring decisions hold views that one ethic group is better/more desirable or worse/less desirable than others – what used to be called “racist.” By this new definition, abortion is racist, since the results of abortion tend to apply disproportionately to particular ethic groups. I’m being a bit tongue-in-cheek, folks, but not entirely. My point is that once we define racism by the results achived rather than the intentions of the achievers in one place, we have to use that same definition everywhere. And furthermore, once we decide that racism-by-result is the standard, then it makes no difference whether the people behind an idea are racist.

I can’t speak to whether Plan Parenthood is racist-by-intent. I think some of Sanger’s statements are racist, but then again a lot of things I’ve said, out of context, could be taken as evidence that I’m anti-semite. (in some circles, the definitionof “anti-semite” has slipped to “doesn’t knee-jerkedly approve of everything Israel does.”) I know of at least one crisis pregnancy center in NJ that gets better than 60% of its referrals from (gasp!) the local Planned Parenthood office, which appears to be staffed by moderates who genuinely wish to help people. Based on that, could I call Planned Parenthood a pro-life organization? The center doesn’t go public with this, btw, to protect the folks working for PP, who would catch hell if the national organization found out.

But just in case all this word-mincing leaves anyone with doubts, killing babies is wrong whether they are born yet or not.

I agree, Bart. Did you ever notice how people trot out “anything that is not of faith is sin” whenever they are keen to label something as sinful/harmful that is not clearly forbidden in Scripture? Sheesh. Talk about a slippery slope.
The worst thing about the Harry Potter books is that they are not written as well as they could have been (and certainly not anywhere near Lewis or Tolkien). But to insinuate that because Lewis and Tolkien were Christians, their books are more “sanctified” than Rowlings’ (because, of course, Christians by default write books that are “of faith” and non-Christians by default do not, right?) is ludicrous. I don’t even see how such an argument can be made with a straight face. Do we really want to look down through history, talking about which authors were Christians and which ones weren’t? How about degrees? Do better Christians write “more sanctified” novels? Is there a sliding scale that determines the sanctity of a work of fiction based on the life of the author? Give me a break.
And Gregory, I have yet to hear anyone on this board argue that parents should not be allowed to decide what books their children may or may not read. In fact, I have never heard anyone anywhere try to make that argument, and I have read a lot of people’s opinions on the subject (mainly because I taught a research class with a censorship emphasis over the summer). Is there any reasonable person who would argue with the idea that parents should be free to make decisions about their own children’s reading? I would like to meet him/her.
Also, I don’t think Mike was arguing the Scout position you seemed to suggest he was arguing. He was not saying that time is the factor in deciding whether or not to get rid of a member. It was the fact that all that time had passed with the Scouts knowing what he believed, THEN they decided to kick him out. I think Mike’s undistorted opinion would be, Don’t let ‘em in in the first place if they believe contrary to your principles. Don’t say, OK, you can join; nurture and sponsor them; then, near the point of completion, tell them suddenly, You’re out. It’s ludicrous.
Man. I’m with you on one thing—I should just skim more.

I just want everyone to know that I an generating sinful keystrokes from a sinful keyboard while looking at a sinful monitor. My computer is processing at a sinful 500mhz (I’m not kidding about that one) while I sit in my sinful cube. Thinking about how best to avoid all of theses sinful things. Because, none of them are of faith. I’m damned. Hal Lindsay take me away! };->

Jim N: Currently blacks (or African Americans, to use the PC term—or perhaps Negroid people, to use the scientific term) comprise about 12% of the society, around 32.x% of the abortions and 64% of violent crimes. I do not believe this is due to their strain, but rather due to the fact more are poor and come from broken homes. The solution employed has been to dole out aid and convince them that the only reason they are poor is they are victims of the wealthy white man, which is now termed “Republican,” despite the fact that the Democrats in the south were the ones more likely to try to prevent blacks from voting in the 60s. What a difference 35+ years make.

Michael: Just remember it is not really Hal Lindsey. He was raptured in 1988 (either that or he is a false prophet—your choice). As for the Boy Scout: He joined under false pretenses and kept them up. The Boy Scouts did not secretly bring in the belief in a higher power, so there is no excuse. As for the timing, they should have thrown him out a long time ago. But, we have no evidence that it was widely known, only conjecture. As such, I would take that the Boy Scouts are innocent until proven guilty. As for the time element: Does this mean that you should not be able to dump a person who does not fit your qualifications if they are members for a lengthy period of time? In other words, do the guiding values become meaningless over time (on a case by case basis), or do you throw out your principles if the person is able to stand in your midst for long enough? It is a very slippery slope here.

Megan: While I think the Potter issue has been thrown way out of proportion (and, is a bit of a dead horse around here - you are new, so no offense taken), there are marked differences between Potter and Lord of the Rings (did I mention this horse is dead? ;>). The main argument I will stand behind is anything that is not of faith is of sin, which is biblical. For some, because Potter undermines their faith, it falls firmly in the realm of sin. For others, it is, at best, a minor distraction.

Ultimately, it is up to the parent to determine if there is a Potter problem. I can see times when Potter can become a major stumbling block, and should be curtailed. I do not see Harry Potter leading to cocaine use, but I can see that there are elements which, if left unchecked, could cause problems. I do not have a problem with a parent that determines that Harry Potter is outside of their belief system, as magick and Christianity are like oil and water. I would not take this stance, but parents do have to have some amount of control, and forbiding Harry Potter, while reactionary, does not hurt the child’s welfare. As such, it is an issue best dropped.

Let’s me go down a checklist for your comment.

1. gun-toting: Never toted. Have one for home protection, which I, thankfully, have never had to use. I do not relish the day I ever have to use it.
   
2. Planned Parenthood protesting: A bit closer to the mark. I am more concerned about their efforts to hide options like abstinence, adoption, et al, than I am about abortion. I am firmly against shooting abortion doctors. The battle is not ours, it is God’s. I speak out against abortion, but I do not try to “win the war” with force.
   
3. Focus on the Family funded: I think I may actually have a Dobson book somewhere. I have personally met James Dobson, who is often demonized for his public stance on family values. He is a rather soft-spoken, humble man who is deeply committed to his own family and God. I wish more Christian leaders were willing to stand up the way he does, as the attacks are relentless. I do not agree 100% to everything that FOF does, but you can definitely see scripture as the foundation for most of it. On the funding issue, I get none.
   
4. loudmouths: I have been accussed of this, but I generally get yelled at more than I yell. In most cases, I have learned to shut up when interupted and attempt to quietly make your point. The only problem is I have found that the opposition takes this as a sign of weakness. There are morons on the Christian side of the debate, as well.
   
5. assumptions: Everyone takes assumptions with them, and most interject them into their politics. While I agree with the separation of church and state that the church should neither control the government or the government control the church, the rest of first amendment gives the church wide lattitude (despite what the ACLU would brainwash you to believe). Personally, I am a skeptic at heart, so I want someone to show me their research prior to jumping on the bandwagon. I am not a kool-aid drinker.
   

Unfortunately, many well-meaning “liberals” (I hate labels), college students, et al, believe that Conservative Christians are all Moral Majority kool-aid drinkers that purchase right wing Christian magazines and can quote the party line. It is easy to believe as many who are not in this group are media-brains who find it hard to have an original thought, but rely on their daily dose of CNN to let them know what they should be ticked off about today. “Just remember that America deserved 9/11 and you will fit in nicely! NEXT!!!” I think, personally, that we live in a great country. Yes, America has its problems, but we have so much going for us.

As for time: I spend a bit during the morning, some time at lunch and occasionally get in at night. Then, I disappear for many days. I find that I skim more than read these days.

Could it be any worse than genocide? No offense to anyone here, but calling PP racist is kind of like calling Hitler anti-semite. It’s true, but it misses the point that they’re both genocidal maniacs who should be left in a room, tied to a chair, with a large, drunk Scotsman armed with a boulder, a club, and a bad attitude.

For the record, I was unable to locate a monk’s robes this weekend, so my plans to nail the 95 Theses to the local RCC door fell through. I am planning on giving out candy to the local kids, tho. Come on down, youngin’s – Mary Janes and Smarties for everyone! Not THOSE Mary Janes, although I’m sure it would make me popular with the middle school crowd.

Jim N:
You are the only other person I have ever heard espouse my theory on racist population control. COOL! somebody else gets it!

Jake, Margaret Sanger (link is favorable), who founded Planned Parenthood, held views that some people would call “eugenics” with respect to non-white races. Whether Sanger was trying to help the minorities her programs targetted (as supporters claim), or trying to prevent white anglo-saxons from being overrun by the unwashed brown masses (as detractors claim) can best be determined by reading her own writtings; my own view is that she was at least as much a racist as were her contemporaries. Whites in Post-Civil War America struggled with the effects of “reconstruction”, immigration, and industrialization; many of them came to fear that whites of european extraction where being marginalized, and thus reactions everywhere from the YMCA (which was founded to promote “christian manhood” and give young desk-jobbers a workout) to the KKK.

Regardless, the facts are something else. Between 1972 and 2001, 13 million abortions were performed on African-American women (source). That’s 1/3 of the abortions. I don’t think anyone is ready to claim that persons of color (or whatever else we’re supposed to call the ethinc descendants of Africans brought to America these days) constitute 1/3 of the population. Whatever the intent, the practical effect of “safe” legalized abortion is to limit the size of that segment of the population. And looking at the numbers, and at how little representation blacks have on the pro-choice side of the argument, it’s easy to see how people draw the conclusion that I came to: abortion is racist. The same way hiring the most qualified white man over a less qualified black man is racist. If we’re going to operate with a definition of racist that’s meaningful, then we have to apply it consistently; otherwise it becomes meaningless, like “liberal” or “conservative”. (That last is a jab at a Wellstone supporter I know is reading this, who complained that I was name-calling when I said that Wellstone was “liberal.”)

This page takes a while to load, but it’s worth it.

WG: I think my daughter saying “Levioso!” (which I have seen her do, BTW) is about as harmless as her saying “Bippity Boppity Boo!” or whatever it is from Cinderella. Both are nonsensical phrases that hold no danger for young minds. I have had one conversation with my daughter about Harry Potter, which she loves (even though she’s afraid to watch the troll part) (we haven’t read the books to her yet, b/c she’s still in the Junie B Jones stage), and the gist of that was, “You know this is all pretend, right?” She thought it was a silly question—of course it’s all pretend.
As far as Narnia not having a good witch—true. But LOTR has Gandalf, and most people who oppose HP do not oppose Tolkien. It’s basically a poorly-thought-out, born-of-ignorance, knee-jerk, bandwagon, someone-somewhere-is-having-fun kind of thing (much like the drooling anti-Halloween approach).
Hey! I think I know Mike’s big announcement! He has solved the Saddam problem: He’s going to call both GWB and Saddam, each without the other’s knowledge, and invite them to dinner at his house. When they both show up, they’ll be slightly ticked at first, but hijinks and hilarity and reconciliation will ensue, followed by an “Ahhhh” from the audience. Oooh, or maybe it’s the old whisper “Bush wants to patch things up” in Saddam’s ear, and “Saddam wants to patch things up” in Bush’s ear, and they will work everything out! I’m so excited! Sorry to ruin the surprise, Michael.

I’m a little disappointed in y’all. No mention of it at all. Shameful.

HAPPY REFORMATION DAY!

Add this one, too.

You can add this to your “This Sucks” list.

Daschle is absolutely unreal: “I was very disappointed with the very negative tone that Mr. Coleman took in this race,” Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle told reporters Sunday, “far more negative than it had to be, and that wasn’t Paul Wellstone’s style.”

Good writer of fantasy: Susan Cooper. Over Sea, Under Stone. BTW, can’t wait to see what the new Narnia series is like: Aslan comes out of the closet, and decides that King of Narnia will be a rotating title among all the animals of Narnia.

Megan: Rigney said it all on HP, and I agree. This was one of the original debates on the old IM board, historic because Angus PUBLICALLY RECANTED his position on HP. Also, somewhere in a public school, there is a club for kids who smoke Crack Cocaine.

JimN: I’ll pre-order my set. Do it, and then goad me for not doing it.

W.G.: The HP paranoia is part of evangelical modernism, where there is always a PROBLEM that we can fix if we just quit doing it or don’t read it or don’t go to the movie. Leland Ryken edited a wonderful book called The Christian Imagination that ought to be required reading. The Monk has weighed in on this topic.

Matthew, Lindsey has a Ring of Power. It preserves him. You might say “stretched”.

It’s time to come clean. I’m in the process of writing two children’s books. They are about magic and dragons. And I’m occasionally under satanic influence. If these ever get published, I only ask that you buy the copies that you burn.

The Narnia comparison fails mostly because Lewis was deliberately writing alegories to teach matters of faith, where as Harry Potter is more like LoTR; there’s a moral to the story, but the author’s main purpose is to write a good story. If you want to compare something to Lewis’ books, you’d have to read Philip Pullman; his books strike me as being Narnia written by an atheist.

Uhh, that guy at the end with the convoluted statement about the litmus test blah blah blah. He needs to go back and read Wesley’s stuff and a history of Methodism. We’ve always been a confessional church concerned with believing what we perceive to be correct doctrines. To say anything against that is just plain uninformed boobery. Why do we even have our articles of religion if we’re not concerned with believing the right thing?

How is it that Hal is about 70 and looks like he’s 50? What a maroon!

MatthewJ: An interesting piece about a controversial UMC bishop and the conservative reaction to his views. There is no doubt that conservatives are speaking out more often and more confidently.

Hmmm. The Canadian government has advised its citizens of middle Eastern origin to avoid travel to…..the U.S.!! .......I’m not saying anything. I am NOT saying anything.

Megan: I want to warn you that Angus has been absent today, so you have not been properly acclimated. Avoid all judgments on the BHT until the full Scottish experience arrives.

If you want the ranting paranoid view of Halloween, you’ll not do better than Hal Lindsey.

The link is at the Obscure Reading Room. After reading the main coverage, and the reaction of the victim’s families to the letter and its characterization of the victims, I reconsidered the posting.

Dude, what happened to the thingy about the guy in Arizona? I just finished reading it. I genuinely felt sorry for the guy. I have a feeling that my Dad might know him. He was stationed in Germany around the same time my Dad was (2nd time around) and the guy was in air defense artillery (patriot) which is what my Dad was. I’ll have to E-mail him. I wish he would have found a church.

Quit school and blog. Any questions?

“Conservative Christians are gun-toting, Planned Parenthood protesting, Focus On The Family funded loudmouths who take their assumptions about life into politics.”

I own a gun, but do not tote it. Not yet. (That’s because most everyone else in Clay County is toting.)
Planned Parenthood is an organization founded to abort the babies of African-Americans. How Democrats have managed to get past that one is amazing.
I would accept funds from Focus, but they haven’t been forthcoming. Though I think Dobson is well intentioned, his more recent bullying antics have turned me off big time. Esp the tirade about Palestinians. I am through with the guy until he learns to say he was wrong. (But I did like that program that got him dropped from some Chrsitian stations.)
I am a loudmouth, but only on here. Or about 0.00002% of the time in the real world. Most of the time, I am laughing at it all behind your back. I am that wise-ass kid in the back of the class reading my book instead of doing the teachers work.
I take my presuppositions about God into life. I look for the presuppositions behind EVERYTHING all the time.
Politics is worldview warfare in a very imperfect world. I refuse to fight dirty, but I will fight.
I do not think conservatives are more intelligent than liberals. I do not think liberals are evil. I do think the power players in the Democratic party are basically tyrants and seek to impose tyranny.

On the Eagle Scout matter: Gregory: I think it is a bit different than the standards for joining. 1) This kid is 19. 2) He has been a scout since age 9. 3) He has recieved 37 merit badges, has already done the 1,000 hours of community service required for an Eagle and helps lead a troop. 4) In 1998, after a seven year legal battle, the Scouts awarded the Eagle to two scouts who refused to take the “Oath to God.” 5) the Scouts have every right to ban someone from membership. To do so at this point, at the pinnacle of a scouting career, reflects extremely poorly on the Scouts. 6) Read the article. The BSA locals have picked this fight when they could have- and IMO- should have passed on it.

I support the Scouts right to exclude atheistic non-members from becoming members. I don’t support their right to exclude a ten year member in good standing whose atheism was known long ago. The pressure on him to proclaim faith in “Mother Nature” etc is the antithesis of the ideals of the BSA. Shame on them.. It would be like my school having a policy against divorced employees, then hiring a divorced guy, working him for ten years, then before he is promoted, firing him for being divorced. We saw a similar matter in our state with the Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children. They hired a lesbian. She told them she was a lesbian. She worked for them 8 years (??). Then she enters a photo contest and appears in a picture with her partner wearing t-shirts that reference lesbianism. The photos are shown publically. She is fired. IMO, the wrong here is with the organization. I support their right to not hire. I do not support their right to mistreat those they do hire.

IMO, he could list himself or any other person as God and be totally consistent with his worldview.

Mike Birch: What is your view?