As a noted expert, I submit:

“Mother Pussbucket”

So, when you nail your thumb with a hammer…”Mother Pussbucket”

Hmm, replacement swear words. I’m sure any of us who’ve had to balance an outlet for frustration with growing up Christian have had to deal with these. Just for the record, my kids are gonna have to invent creative replacements too, because if I didn’t get to curse as a kid, neither will they.

I think the ones I personally use are “fark” and “freak”. Proper usage is “What the freak?” Or “Oh fark!” And of course, there’s the nod to Dr. Evil’s “frickin’”.

As a kid, some of the more interesting ones that people came up with were “Piece of Fat” (“Oh, piece OF fat!”) or “Half Bald (“you MUST be half bald, boy!”). There was also “Mutha Flower” and more dangerous “Father Mucker”.

Oh, I almost forgot “Motherscratcher” from one of the funniest movies ever made.

Ah, Michael, good subject (replacement words for swears): Two of my favorites are “Sugar” and “Foot.” They are silly, and are good exemplars of the theory that cussing is all in the intent. I had a friend who would never cuss, not even in a fun, joking manner; but if he lost his keys he would angrily say, “Aw foot!” Like that is somehow holier than “Aw f***!” when both mean exactly the same thing in that context. Sugar is just as bad. Make a wrong turn? Say, “Oh, sugar!” and fifteen Baptist deacons in the back seat won’t bat an eye. Don’t use the other one for the same reason though, or righteous judgment will rain down from heaven.
I have no moral problem with either Sugar or Foot as expletive replacements—they just annoy me for personal reasons.
My wife and I and our friends like to throw out some unusual ones, like “Sacagewea” or “Hahira, Georgia!” (using Ray Stevens’s pronunciation of Hay-Hira) For instance, “SACagawea, that hurt!” or “What in the HAY-hira, Georgia was that?!” Another of my faves is “What in the wide wide world of sports is a-goin on here?” a la Slim Pickens in this great masterpiece. I also like “Son of a motherless goat” and “Scum-sucking pig” from this, and—when the matter is especially shocking or upsetting and cussing is not appropriate—I use this: “Sick-sackin’, yackety-yackin, honky mofo”; made up of vague references to a college friend’s sleep-deprived rant (the sick-sack part), a Robert Tilton quote (“The lies of the foul, stinkin’, yackety-yack devil!”), and this movie, which wasn’t great, but had some inspired performances. Also, any expletive or expletive phrase with the word monkey in it is always fun: “Well, monkey sh*t!”
Now that you’re all once and for all convinced that I’m nuts, I’ll go back to my hole now.
I’m staying out of the dead horse’s guts this time.

Rob: Cute kid !!! Congratulations. Is Tyler your first child?

I should be at work, but I’m not. I’ve got a free hour because I have been in town jinxing my daughter’s driving test. (Failed in attempt #2. Another illegal manuever.) Chapel is Vocational Awards, so I am free till lunch. I just installed a network card in the computer. The cable modem is sitting here next to me and the router is ready to go. I am itching to get all this on the road. I think I am going to spend a few extra bucks and get a bit faster connection than I planned. Life is short. Party hardy.

Bob and Sheri had a good one this morning: What creative words or phrases have you heard people use as a replacement for profanity? There were some really idiotic ones as well as some very good ones. Remember people saying “Judas Priest!!”?

The Dead Horse has come back to familiar territory. Since I am on the sidelines, I look forward to learning about Gregory’s long promised Via Media on this issue. I’ll clean up all broken glasses and plates. I would offer this question: Is it a matter of both positions being taught in scripture, or that we must reduce it to both positions in order to understand scripture? I believe only one position resolves all the data in scripture, but I can see that in communication, there may need to be some “both…and” at times.

My Greek class continues to be the best thing going. I actually do seem to have more talent in teaching Greek than I ever imagined. It is really funny because I did pretty average in Greek, and was clueless lots of the time because my teachers wouldn’t 1) explain terms 2) Give good illustrations or 3) use Biblical examples. I work hard at all three. Instead of just saying “memorize the the rule,” I am trying to get my students to see the concepts at work.

We really went round a couple of times with my son over the school dress code. He wants to buy some “skater” clothes that are probably just outside the dress code, or will at least attract the attention of some of the staff. I don’t want him to get hassled at a place where people never forget your mistakes, so I’ve said he can buy what he wants with his money, but I won’t let him wear the shirts at school. I even offered to take the shirt pics to the dean of students to see if they were illegal. Safe to say, nothing I am doing is working. It’s all stupid rules for the purpose of making a phoney impression of people to give money. Of course, I was so smart at 15, I know where he gets all this wisdom. He is not impressed that he couldn’t even wear t-shirts to half the PUBLIC schools in Ky because of the new dress codes.

Rob: Way to go! Unfortunately, that little’un may keep you away even more now! But for a terrific cause ;-)

Rob: Congratulations! I know you must be proud!

Alex: I agree. The Chomsky/Zinn LOTR link was hilarious. Chomsky is an educated idiot when it comes to politics and economics and “activism.” I absolutely love and agree with his work in linguistics, however. Without meaning to, his linguistic work offers more evidence of God-ordained order in the universe. As a grad student dreading taking linguistics, my whole view of language was suddenly and without warning awakened and changed, thanks to Chomsky. When I found out his other thinking was tunnel-visioned and moronic, I was very disappointed. Maybe he’s an idiot savant?

Alex: My trip to Mexico was great. The people are phenomenal and their enthusiasm and Christ centeredness really was impressive. The sermons were pretty solid but there were some brutal invitations. I have little confidence in responses made under those conditions.

Alex: ROFLMAO! Excellent link to the Chomsky and Zinn analysis.

Jim N: * throwing crockery ;-.* I am still not convinced that one must be 100% one or the other.

I found this transcript of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn “analyzing” The Fellowship of the Ring to be rather humorous.

I won’t even get started on the ol’ dead horse. Although I will say that my experience in Mexico a few weeks ago was moments of great fellowship and mission punctuated by chapel services filled with emotionalistic, unbiblical, man-centered “sermons,” including the invitation, the exhortation not to just “merely love” Jesus, but to be “deeply, passionately IN love with Jesus,” and the analogy between Jesus and one’s girl/boyfriend. Yucky…

I read Derbyshire’s article this morning and E-mailed him about it. He actually replied. He didn’t respond to anything I said, but he’s a busy man. In the course of his article Mr. Derbyshire used three examples of others’ kids and then he also talked about himself as a young man. I was struck by the absence of the terms “discipline” and “responsibility.” We’re going through a time with some friends who have a child who has turned into a POS. The dad was beaten severely as a child and so they have never disciplined their kids. This kid is living the Life because no one ever jerked a knot in the back of his head or put him in the corner, or, or, or, ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. I told Mr. Derbyshire that I was mad as hell that I didn’t learn responsibility and discipline until my mid-twenties. Why didn’t I learn it earlier? Permissive parenting. Now, my mother didn’t let me run wild, but I do suspect that she didn’t make me do some of the things I should have done because she felt sorry for me as a result of my parents’ divorce. Watch my kids not get the same. He thanked me for a voice from “the other side” which I take to mean the child side in this discussion.

I knew it!!!! I KNEW SHE WAS A CHUNK!!!

John Derbyshire has a wonderful- really insightful- column about raising children. I am in the midst of mega- parenting challenges with my son right now, and the article was good to read. Not really encouraging, just good to read that someone else is thinking about all this.

I am glad to see the dead horse rides again without my help. Every few months, I contemplate how wonderful it would be if I did not talk very much. If I could be one of those mostly silent people I know who seem happy to say very little. It really gets to me that my words- which are the way I make my living- are the source of just about every conflict and difficulty I have. From the time I was just a kid, I would wonder if I could take some sort of a vow of silence, and actually get used to being a largely silent person. As anyone who reads IM or the BHT can tell, I have completely failed. I am doomed to do more harm than good in the world by the incessant airing of my opinions. I’m not even nice, like Aaron Brown on CNN. So I am going to pour the drinks for you guys, and keep the darts going, and find a good station on the radio.

One of my college student correspondents wrote me last night about a brush with an “aggressive Calvinist” who was leading a Bible study and was laying down the rules about what could and could not be said from now on, in order to properly honor her belief that election WAS salvation. Judd, many of the same things you repeated, and I am glad to know that we can all agree the sovereignty of God in salvation is not threatened by the ignorance of men. What is heartbreaking is to know that the great assurance and blessing that the scriptures have for us in knowing that “salvation is of the Lord,” is denied by those who run wholesale away from any Biblical teaching on election. The great doctrine of election is one of the foundational frames of God’s covenant dealings with all human beings. To avoid it completely is to be deprived of a wonderful source of worship, praise and comfort. When I think of my sins, I think of Christ, and I think of the sovereign election of God, and the totality of that grace brings joy where there was only judgement and fear.

Judd: I’ve been through the whole thing lately in our men’s group. God elects people for salvation. That is irrefutable. That’s why they are called the elect. The only argument is on what basis He elects them. Does He do it according to His good pleasure or our good pleasure?

Put another way: Does God try? The word “try” implies the possibility of failure. Is God trying to get people saved or is He saving them? If God is trying to save everyone then He is failing most of the time. Picture Jesus looking up at the Father in frustration and saying “I can’t do anything with them”.

Ah, I’ve missed the horse.

Judd, with appologies to Krauthammer, I propose “Nicholson’s Law,” to wit:

Arminians think Calvinists are evil. Calvinists think Arminians are stupid.

Gregory gets upset no matter which you call him.

Gregory: Sorry, but I thought the final paragraph would do. Guess, it was way too deep into the tirade.

Judson: I will agree with the idea that to be staunchly on either side of the argument is foolish (to the extent that you believe God must exist in your box). There are some core issues in Christianity that are harder to have a debate with anyone who is willing to objectively examine scripture, but this is not a hill I would choose to die on.

Ken: Next time, please issue a sarcasm alert. I was blindsided by that tornado. ;->

Matthew: I am a certified expert on Whataburgers. I graduated from Arkansas Tech University in 1985. Man, I lived on Feltner’s Whataburgers and Senior Bob burritos. A shame that Senior Bob went out of business in the mid 80’s.

Judd: Come on brother. Take off your “Calvin” glasses and see the truth. Don’t you know that Paul was confused when he wrote: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Ephesian 1:4-6

Paul failed to properly interpret the Holy Spirit’s inspiration as he wrote this letter to the believers at Ephesus. What he really meant to write was the this so-called predestination unto adoption as children is really according to the good pleasure of “man’s” will, not God’s will. Paul got it all wrong in verse 5 where he said it was according to the good pleasure of his (God’s) will. Paul meant to write that a result of this that we make ourselves – even in spite of our wickedness and in spite of our being dead in trespasses and sin – accepted in the beloved. Surely not that he makes us accepted.

Anyone with half a brain knows that those babies that are fortunate to get adopted in the real world have the initial say, and the final say, in who gets to adopt them. That new-born baby girl delivered in a Ft. Smith hospital, whose mother was a transient from Texas, got final say – at less than a week old – got final say in whose home she got to live in. When the doctor called a family in a nearby town and said “do you want a baby girl?”, that family who had just lost a son to a birth defect, really didn’t determine that they wanted her. It was that newborn’s decision to live with them. Those parents just thought that they chose her. Everyone knows that is how adoptions work. The babies get to pick their parents !!!!

Judd, just agree with these guys, but be sure and tell them that Ephesians chapters 1 and 2, Romans 8 and 9, John 6 at a minimum has gotta come out of their Bibles. At the very least they need to take a black “Sharpie” and obliterate several verses from those chapters

Seriously, this discussion has come up in our Men’s Discipleship Training class several times over the past 6 or 8 years that I have been leading the class. I have used the analogy of “two sides of the same coin” with God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility to believe. I affirm and emphasize both when these discussions come up. I do not give in to those who deny God’s sovereignty in the salvation of sinners. I do affirm with Jonah, the reluctant prophet, that Salvation is of the Lord !

Gregory: Please re-read my comment about “how can a bible believing fundamentalist be staunchly against”. It was not derogatory. It was a genuine example of exasperation.

Example: For a person to be mildly offended by free will is probably just to be human. For them to be staunchly against free will, is for them to dismiss a lot of the bible. It is arrogant.

In the same- fair- manner-

For a person to be mildly offended by predestination is probably just to be human. For a person to be staunchly against predestination is for them to dismiss much of the bible. It is arrogant.

Gregory: I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist ;-)

Jim N: This might be the best link to read that I have found on Bloom.

Hey Ken, I’m moving to Russellville at the end of May. You ought to drive over and get a REAL Whattaburger.

I got this in one of those email chains (send to 1 million people or rot in hell reference removed ;->):
A young man who had been raised as an atheist was training to be an Olympic diver. The only religious influence in his life came from his outspoken Christian friend. The young diver never really paid much attention to his friend’s sermons, but he heard them often. One night the diver went to the indoor pool at the college he attended. The lights were all off, but as the pool had big skylights and the moon was bright, there was plenty of light to practice by. The young man climbed up to the highest diving board and as he turned his back to the pool on the edge of the board and extended his arms out, he saw his shadow on the wall. The shadow of his body was in the shape of a cross. Instead of diving, he knelt down and finally asked God to come into his life. As the young man stood, a maintenance man walked in and turned the lights on. The pool had been drained for repairs.

Judson: The bible is very vibrant on both sides of the dead horse, so it is very difficult for either side to say they have this locked. In general, most people on either side caricature the other and then attack that straw man.

As for the quotes:
“I’ll go to my grave believing that God does not predestine people to salvation.” – God has changed my mind on numerous things throughout my life. It is rather arrogant to think that God cannot change someone’s mind on this.

“If you ever doubt that you were saved, you never were saved. Once saved always saved.” – The argument of once saved, always saved, when looked at objectively, is more calvanistic than Baptist (oops, did I let a cat out of the bag?—assumption on the denomination of your group members). If God has predestined, you are saved, for all time. Looking at the broader picture, Paul has many warnings to hold onto the faith. Why warn if you cannot walk away?

“Predestination cannot be true. The bible says ‘whosoever’.” – Either this statement is rather dumb, or I am lost. But, each side of this debate has made dumb comments.

“Israel is still God’s chosen people.” – I would probably agree with this, based on the covenants of the Old Testament. Unless you believe those covenants are null and void due to the new covenant. But, this is a topic for another discussion. This is not uniquely Calvanistic or free will.

“If everybody is predestined, why go out and missionize them?” – I will agree with you 100% on this being a rather stupid statement. My answer: because Jesus said to do it (unless you believe the evangelistic words are all redaction, then why missionize at all). Whether our evangelizing leads people to Christ (via the Spirit, of course), or we are simply allowed to participate, we are commanded to make disciples of all nations (in a variety of words and passages, for those who believe the end of Matthew is tacked on).

All I want to know is this- how can a bible believing fundamentalist be staunchly against God predestining people, in His good pleasure, yet still retain the logical faculties to continue to exist without their heads exploding?: This comment is rather derogatory in nature, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt: There are many passages that explore the concept of Free Will that can be logically argued. As such, there is no lock on one side or the other. There are Calvanistic idiots, just like there are free will idiots. When you look at the word for predestined, you will find that it can also express the concept of foreknowing, which can be divided into knowing the person’s nature and knowing what he will do.

Calvanists can put God in a box just as readily as Arminians (and those who fall in between). Saying God must have total control over our lives or He is not sovereign, is a box. God can give us the power to do what we will and still be God Almighty. As neither side has a lock on this issue, it is best to leave the horse dead from now on.

Our church began revival services yesterday, with an emphasis on “healthy churches”. These meeting are sponsored by the Ark. Baptist State Convention. There are 5 churches from our Association that are having five meetings, two Sunday, then Monday thru Wed. nights. Five different speakers rotate among the five churches. Novel idea.

The speaker Sunday morning (yesterday) preached on the benefits of Christianity. He compared Peter and the rich young ruler (RYR). Part of his message was that the RYR was not saved because he was not willing to give up his riches. He never clarified this emphasis, but stated several times that had the RYR given up his possessions, he would have been saved. As I listened to this sermon, I could not help but think what an unbeliever would have thought was necessary for eternal life. According to this employee of the Ark. Baptist Evangelism Dept., you must give up your earthly riches to be saved. That’s what I heard.

I thought the Jesus’ comment to the RYR about his riches, was because the RYR said he had kept the commandments related to others, i.e. do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, do not murder, do not covet your neighbor possession. And yet, he had failed the first two commands, to have no other gods and to worship no false images, for he loved his riches more than he loved Jehovah.

Anyone ever encountered this “doctrine” of salvation before? Give it all up and you will be saved. No mention of our sin offending a just and holy God. No mention that salvation is by God’s grace appropriate to undeserving sinners. No believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. No, that if you confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead and you will be saved. No, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Just give it all up to Jesus and ask Him into your heart.

WARNING- smell of rotting equine flesh ahead.

I love my brothers at work. We get together for bible study 3 nights a week, when we can (although we all work different shifts). It is the highlight of my week- getting together with the people of God, in order to consider the scriptures together. And, I tell them all that. (They all kind of look at me funny when I do.)

Last night, we started Ephesians. I am the sole Calvinist, in a group of 8. Needless to say, I was quiet as a mouse for most of the time.

Sigh. I suppose this is what I get. I had it coming. God give me the grace to live with it.

Verbatim quotes:

“I’ll go to my grave believing that God does not predestine people to salvation.”

This, despite bible verses describing predestination outnumbering those describing human effort by four to one. You’d think, based on such crude criteria, one would be able to convince a bible-believing fundamentalist. No. It’s easier to deny reams scripture in order to preserve your egotistical vision, than it is to bow to the truth of Almighty God.

“If you ever doubt that you were saved, you never were saved. Once saved always saved.”

Lovely. So now, human faculty is trustworthy enough to objectively determine salvation? Great. I’m happy to know that my emotions are more trustworthy than Almighty God. What a comfort.

“Predestination cannot be true. The bible says ‘whosoever’.”

Terrific! A bible-believing fundamentalist has just uttered a completely universalistic statement, without realizing the implications of it.

“Israel is still God’s chosen people.”

Wonderful. Millions of Jews, who rejected Christ, are in hell right now. Yet, they are still God’s chosen people. Hold on a second, let me tell them that. Oh, wait! There is this huge gulf between me and them right now, even with me just on earth. Sorry. I need a hell megaphone. Hey, guess what guys. You’re God’s chosen people!

“If everybody is predestined, why go out and missionize them?”

Super! Dozens of the most zealous missionaries in history were staunch believers in predestination- suddenly, their efforts were in vain, their motives suspect.

All I want to know is this- how can a bible believing fundamentalist be staunchly against God predestining people, in His good pleasure, yet still retain the logical faculties to continue to exist without their heads exploding? Doesn’t it feel a little, I don’t know, WIERD, to claim to believe in the inerrancy of the bible, yet adamantly deny predestination?

Phillip: Brother, it is so wonderful to have the blessed hope of the return of our Lord, Christ. I just pray we don’t get so soft that we pooh-pooh all sin- because that hope is not available to those who feel no need to repent. I want those sinful people to join me in that hope.

Judd: I hear you, man, and like I said, it bothers me. I don’t view my position as the Christian one, but as the best one given the depravity of humankind. That is, the society with the power to regulate X within my home also has the power to regulate Bible ownership or whatever. While it might be nice to live in a society based on God’s law (though I’m actually not su sure, all things considered), even Israel never did to well, spending very short periods of time ruled by Godly people between long stretches of national enslavement. Overall, I honestly think that this is just one more area where being an American conflicts with being a Christian. One of many. 8^)

Jake: Van Morrison’s Greatest Hits, Vols. I and II and/or Astral Weeks; John Piper’s “For Whom did Jesus Taste Death?”; audio copy of Keruoac’s On The Road (it’s actually more of a love letter to America than people give it credit for, in their rush to lump Keruoac in with the worst of the beat generation).
Michael: Great Chandler quote. It’s going on my door.
Judd: Welcome to the joy of Flannery O’Connor. I typed a long post in response to yours on Friday, but Blogger ate it, and I was in no mood to retype, being that I was in the dregs of an upper-respiratory infection which has somewhat receded. Anyway, I know the exact feeling about the not being able to finish nonfiction thing, even when the book in question is a great book. I think, for me, the problem is that I crave plot. Fiction first got me interested in reading, and until I got interested in education, that was all I read. Nonfiction just doesn’t have that rising action, climax, and denouement that I seem to need in a book. I can finish nonfiction, obviously, or I wouldn’t have finished my education—but it takes discipline.

Bill MacK (and anyone else who wants to know): For a good Pop-Up Stopper, try the Pop-Up Manager. I used to use a program that blocked ALL new windows, even the ones I wanted, unless I used a hotkey combination. Pop-Up Manager seems to be pretty intellegent, and it integrates nicely into IE. It doesn’t work for anything but IE for the PC, tho.

Here is my nightmare scenario. If, at the end of this, you have the idea that I have something against homosexuals, you just don’t get it.

Let me illustrate the consequences when a society decides to abandon God’s law.

First, we decide that whether 2 people “consent” is more important than what God wants. We base this on pragmatic, social reasons which sound noble, but cannot be construed in any way to be holy.

This forces us to conjure up and impose a magical, cross-cultural “age of consent”. If anyone breaks it, whether they are a husband and wife or not, they commit non-consensual pedophilia.

Meanwhile, we decide that human beings have some magical “right to privacy”. We base this on “do unto your neighbor”, which sounds noble.

However, this magical belief logically forces us to say that human beings should not care about the filthy ways in which other human beings are degrading themselves. Therefore, the biblical pretense flies out the window. We don’t really care about our neighbor. He can commit fecal filth, and it’s his business.

Since we have now invented to ungodly rules, by definition they will come into conflict with one another, since we are the authors of confusion, not God.

Therefore, in a pinch, we decide that “consent” overrules “the right to privacy”, to the point that the magistrate gets to interfere in anyone’s affairs if there is a suspicion of non-consent. But, we want it the other way, too. We want people to be able to get as nutty as they want, as long as there is consent. We want people to butt out of each other’s business.

The paradoxical implications make the head spin.

The gospel nature with which our society views “consent” has brought us to the bizarre point at which anything goes as long as two people agree about it. Last time I checked, murder, war and mayhem were group-sanctioned activities. What the hell is wrong with us?

Meanwhile, those of us who believe the bible increasingly are made to feel that our natural disgust for sexual filth is some kind of horrid aberration for which we should be ashamed. We are told, rightly, that “you don’t want to become like that Fred Phelps.”

So, being good, fair-minded folk, we half-heartedly attempt to defend ourselves. But we don’t really believe it. In this area of our lives, we begin to suspect that our aversion to buggery is not something put in place by a loving God, but really is an outdated more which puts us in danger of being unloving Pharisees.

Furthermore, steeped in our own sin, we begin to think how nice it would be if people would be as easy on us as we are supposed to be easy on the homos. We begin finding creative ways to chip away at the meaning of the word ABOMINATION, because we’re not that keen on facing up to our own filth.

Someone points out that we tend to wink at hetero misbehavior in our churches. We look sheepish and admit it. Then we promise we will be kinder to the homos. We congratulate ourselves on our fair-mindedness and tolerance. We are Corinthians, through and through.

At the pleasure of the advocates, we play word games. People who decide to place themselves in a new category of human being force us to use a new word to describe them every week. Homosexuals one week. Gays the next. Transgendered. Bi. Good-naturedly, we go along, because we don’t want to be mean.

All because “society doesn’t have an interest in prohibiting behaviors as long as they are consensual”. Hogwash. If society has an interest in preventing me from viewing pornography, or from being too rough in my bedroom, it damned sure has an interest in preventing other people from degrading themselves with each other, or in preventing me from paying the medical bills for people who destroy their bodies “consensually”.

The more statist we become, not only do we forget that God invented “the state”�we forget that “the state” is us.

Finally, after reading a rant like this, someone accuses us of wanting to be “theocrats” and locking up all the homos. With our tail between our legs, we ignore this blatant false witness against us, whimper, apologize, and go back to figuring out creative ways to excuse ourselves from our filth, and creative ways of excusing it in others. Proud of our tolerant state, which knows better than God, we continue on our merry way.

The laughable thing in all this is that the sodomy laws have been on the books for decades and haven’t resulted in any kind of measurable persecution. In fact, our criminal justice system rightly spends 100 times effort at prosecuting gay-bashers than it does prosecuting gays. Yet, we still think they are outdated and immoral. We laugh at the idea that God might actually like those laws on the books, because, to tell the truth, some of those other laws rub us the wrong way, and we’d rather they go away, too.

Numb to the consequences of our own degradation, we sail off into the waters of tolerance, where nobody has an interest in what anybody else is doing. And we call it loving.

Folks, help me out with this one. I caught part of the president’s remarks at the White House Correspondents Dinner over the weekend, and I’m looking for a transcript. Why? Well, among other things, GWB’s tribute remarks about David Bloom (bio not updated with his obit, an oversight that MSNBC needs to correct) gave a very explicit praise for Bloom’s faith. Bush actually mentioning Jesus by name; you’d think the 1st ammendment crowd would be blowing up all over the place..

I didn’t see any of Bloom’s coverage from Iraq – we pretty much watched the war on C-SPAN, with occasional forrays over to FNC (at times beating a hasty retreat from the over-bearing browbeating of O’Reilly and Hannity,) but everything I’ve heard about David Bloom indicates he was one of the good guys. Anybody else heard anything about this?