QotD

Here's why we have separated powers. And it's also why we should never expect them to be the solution to our ills:

For the LORD is our Judge,
The LORD is our Lawgiver,
The LORD is our King;
He will save us.

Isaiah 33:22 (NKJV)

Feeling for Hillary

If you are ever asked to buy a vowel, guess the puzzle or spin, your obvious inquisitor would be none other than Pat Sajak. Get this: the man's been watching folks spinning wheels since 1981!

Apart from that, Sajak is one of the few conservative voices in Hollywood (though he lives in Maryland). I came across a truly empathetic article from his pen regarding Senator H. R. Clinton and the harsh treatment she's received, not from Republicans, but from her own party.

An interesting look at a party in the midst of digesting its own: "The Left's Demonization of Hillary Clinton" And it's a short read. :o)

Proud to be an American

I believe the following information is from background information is from Snopes.com...
-----------
On a stifling July day in 1918, 18,000 officers and soldiers posed as Lady Liberty on the parade (drill) grounds at Camp Dodge, Des Moines, IA. According to a July 3, 1986, story in the Fort Dodge Messenger, many men, dressed in woolen uniforms, fainted as the temperature neared 105 degrees. The photo, taken from the top of a specially constructed tower by a Chicago photography studio, Mole & Thomas, was intended to help promote the sale of war bonds but was never used.

The design for the living picture was laid out at the drill ground at Camp Dodge, situated in the beautiful valley of the Des Moines River. Thousands of yards of white tape were fastened to the ground and formed the outlines on which 18,000 officers and men marched to their respective positions.

In this body of soldiers are any hundreds of men of foreign birth - born of parents whose first impression of the Land of Freedom and Promise was of the world's greatest colossus standing with beacon light at the portal of a nation of free people, holding aloft a torch symbolic of the light of liberty which the statue represents. Side by side with native sons these men, with unstinted patriotism, now offer to sacrifice not only their liberty but even life itself for our beloved country.

The day on which the photograph was taken was extremely hot and the heat was intensified by the mass formation of men. The dimensions of the platting for the picture seem astonishing. The camera was placed on a high tower. From the position nearest the camera occupied by Colonel Newman and his staff, to the last man at the top of the torch as platted on the ground was 1,235 feet, or approximately a quarter of a mile. The appended figures will give an adequate idea of the distorted proportions of the actual ground measurements for this photograph:

Incredible as it may seem there are twice the number of men in the flame of the torch as in the whole remaining design, while there are eight times as many men in the arm, torch and flame as in all the rest of the figure. It will be noted that the right thumb is five feet longer than the left hand, while the right arm, torch and flame is eight times the length of the body.

Base to shoulder: 150 feet.
Right arm: 340 feet.
Widest part of arm holding torch: 12-1/2 feet.
Right thumb: 35 feet.
Thickest part of body: 29 feet.
Left hand (length): 30 feet.
Tablet in left hand: 27 feet.
Face: 60 feet.
Nose: 21 feet.
Longest spike of head piece: 70 feet.
Flame on torch.: 600 feet.
Torch and flame combined: 980 feet.

Number of men in body, head and balance of figure only: 2,000
Number of men in right arm: 1,200
Number of men in torch: 2,800
Number of men in flame of torch: 12,000!!
Total: 18,000

(See more at the Iowa National Guard Website) Click on the photo below to see the detail!!

QotD: A shallow electorate

"One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom."

Thomas Sowell from "An Old Newness"


Walt Disney Studios

PACE revisited: Everybody duck!

Some of what I blog is frivolous (no comments!). Often, I'll encourage you to follow a link to another site to get the gist of what I'm trying to share.

I stumbled across this tonight.

The PACE (Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly...see "Abortion: The European Front" below) has dropped its facade and has trumpeted its full-scale hostility toward Christianity. They will be voting on a resolution to ban any possibility of discussing the evidence for Intelligent Design or the evidence for a six-day creation and to advance evolutionary teaching as the only acceptable scientific foundation.

Interestingly, in the film "Expelled," a scientist in Poland indicated that he did not catch any flak for advancing the evidence for a creator. He seemed to think the hostility was uniquely American. He is w-r-o-n-g.

It's not that those in science or government would seek to silence God. That is becoming common place. I ask as strongly as I can, please give this resolution a scan ("The dangers of creationism in education") to see the outright hostility toward the implication of Christ on society.

I'm not making this stuff up. Here are a couple of bullets:

• "The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe."
• "We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which, the better to impose religious dogma, are attacking the very core of the knowledge that we have patiently built up on nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe."

Such attitudes exist within our borders as well. Stand firm!

Chopra recreates Jesus in his own image

The review in the paper this morning says it plainly:

In (his new book) "The Third Jesus: The Christ We Cannot Ignore," (Deepak) Chopra examines the teachings of Jesus not in the context of his historical existence as a rabbi of Nazareth, and not in light ofthe Christian belief that he is the son of God, but as "a cosmic Christ" -- Jesus as a state of mind.

Jesus as a state of mind?!? That epitomizes post-modernism. Words have no meaning. History has no meaning. Identity has no meaning. The only meaning that matters in post-modern thought is the meaning that we give to something. And so we get Christ dismissed into becoming nothing more than comfort food. Rather than Christ the rabbi (which He was - Matthew 5:2ff) or God the Son (which He was/is - John 1:1-5, 14, 5:18; Colossians 1:15-20 to name a few), you get Jesus the stuffed animal.

More foul fare:

The third perspective -- which Chopra calls "a cosmic Christ" -- looks at Jesus as a spiritual guide whose teaching embraces all humanity, not just the church built in his name. Chopra argues that Christ speaks to the individual who wants to find God as a personal experience.

Jesus the tolerant (seems He will judge at a time future - 2 Timothy 4:1, 1 Peter 4:5) and God the...God the...experience??? That makes the King of the universe out to be an amusement park ride.

One last glimpse into the abyss. Chopra writes:

"My book is about Jesus as a state of consciousness. I emphasize this over and over again that whatever we do is about improving ourselves and improving the world."

What about Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16)? Spirituality and experience have replaced orthodoxy and obedience. Expect a runaway bestseller as Satan continues to deceive the masses.

Exerpts from "Exploring 'a cosmic Christ'" by Tania Fuentez, Associated Press

The majority of one

You have likely heard that happy platitude that says, "Anyone plus God equals a majority." Truth be told, God alone constitutes a majority.

Apart from the spiritual aspect, is it possible for one man to stand against the majority and be right? In Sunday school today, we discussed the Revolutionary Age in man's history, the 1600's through the 1800's, in light of Francis Schaeffer's "How Shall We Then Live," and in our class, we noted that such an event is NOT possible in a democracy. Democracy is majority rule, and as such, law changes with the whim of the people.

Justice Lifts the Nations by Paul Robert

Our nation, a constitutional republic, was founded the rule of law (Lex Rex) and not the rule of man. As such, a lone man can stand upon the law and state the the majority is wrong, and the majority must bow, not to the man, but to the law. Under a democracy, the lone man would be squashed by the majority.

But whose law? Ah, therein lies the rub. In our increasingly secular society, law has become as arbitrary as the congressional majority. Despite the paintings in the Senate and in the House, the whim of our Representatives has superseded the rule of law. The vote this week becomes the law tomorrow.

While we began as a constitutional republic, the United States has whithered into a representative democracy which in essence is nothing more than polite chaos. The masses no longer recognize the consensus or standard of God's word. Law in Americas has become arbitrary.

Regardless, God's majority status has not changed, no matter what the masses think. As such, the Christian and the Church must stand upon the word of God and speak against lawlessness and unrighteousness in the mirror, in the home, in our neighborhood, and in our country.

No matter the outcome.

Abortion: The European Front

I must admit that I tend to look down my nose toward our European siblings in issues political, cultural, and spiritual. In so many ways, they have loosed themselves from their moral moorings leaving them adrift in a sea of relativity.

Then I think back to William Wilberforce who fought earlier and harder than most Americans and thereby won the freedom of the slaves in Britain decades before it occurred on our shores. Perhaps we freedom conscious Americans drop the ball in areas we'd just as soon ignore.

Once again, Europe speaks regarding the worst violation of civil rights humanity has ever experienced (superlatives intended): Abortion. Chuck Colson notes that Italy's prime minister was recently elected because of his pro-life stance. Despite the pre-election hype recognizing the significant role abortion was going to play, Silvio Berlusconi's reelection left the media silent on that very issue.

What a great encouragement to see victory come to those who stand in the face of the secularist onslaught! Apparently similar things are happening in Spain. Much of this is due to the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Benedict's strong stand on behalf of life.

At the same time Colson was penning his article the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe was meeting. They, too, had some things to say about abortion. Here are a few excerpts:

• The committee has concerns that restrictive abortion legislation, causes many women to travel abroad to access safe abortion services - the phenomena called “abortion tourism”.
• Decriminalising abortion will ultimately preserve life...
• Amendment E-Paragraph 7.2: Guarantee women’s effective exercise of their right to health, including their right to a safe abortion.
• Amendment G-Paragraph 7.7: Introduce compulsory age-appropriate, gender-sensitive sex and relationships education for young people, to avoid unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions.

(Here is the full resolution: Access to Safe and Legal Abortion in Europe)

And so the battle in Europe continues.

Pray for our siblings across the ocean as well as our own nation that we might see and repent of the sin we have committed. Pray that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would extend to the most vulnerable members of society, the unborn.

Pray for repentance and healing for the women who have traveled this route. There is a God who loves them and aches to salve their wounds.

A touch of American pride: The Big Stick

PJ O'Rourke spent a week on the USS Teddy Roosevelt. His journal speaks of the heart and soul of our men and women on the pointy end of the American spear. "24 hours on the 'Big Stick'"

If this doesn't make you proud to be an American, I can get you the number to France's Departement de L'immigration.

The Undiscussables

Conventional wisdom held that the two topics you could not discuss were politics and religion. I contend that those are the two best topics to discuss because of their depth and sheer import for humanity.

In light of the last few blogs, I've thought about a number of topics that have become taboo in the public forum, especially within the media or halls of education:

(Already cited)

1. Evolution's limitations
2. God's existence
3. Global warming
   

(New to the discussion)

1. Man's "right" to medical care
2. Man's "right" to an education
3. Man's "right" to retire
4. Homosexuality and sin
5. Gluttony and sin (pass me my second Big Mac, please)
   
6. Anything and sin
7. Racism from black to white
8. Poverty as a choice
9. The supremacy of the American experiment
10. Marriage

Can you think of any others?

Science & God

The problem begins at the beginning. Not the Genesis "in the beginning," but at your starting point for science.

The Christian knows that the "heavens declare the handiwork of God," and as such is free to dissect the cosmos knowing that whatever he finds will merely bring greater glory to God for the astounding nature of His created universe. It doesn't matter if the scientist examines at the micro or nano level or if he taps into Hubble and tries to peek around the corner of adjacent galaxies. All will point to God. As such, the Christian is free to discover and figure things out knowing that the God who has revealed Himself truly (though not exhaustively) has also revealed Himself truly (though not exhaustively) in His creation.

Many scientists believe that science can only be carried out if you begin with nothing and then try to discover (interestingly, this is not a scientific position, but a philosophical one and not verifiable by science). If you begin with nothing, how then can you determine that anything within the cosmos is knowable or discernible? Again, their naturalistic position founders at the beginning because it is based largely upon philosophical positions and not "scientific" ones.

Another starting point for many scientists is that all of the natural universe must behave naturally and that there must exist a natural explanation for all things. The problem with that point is that if the evidence begins to point to a purposeful design, that conclusion cannot be accepted for a Designer lies outside the realm of the natural world.

What's wrong with that position? If at the outset of a problem you dismiss a possible solution, and if that possible solution turns out to be the actual solution, then the scientist can never come to the correct solution. He will continue to construct fables and cartoons to explain the results while ignoring the elephant in the test tube. It's as though he rips out his eyes and then attempts to discern the nature of a sunset.

So, should science and God coexist? It's a laughable, "OF COURSE!" As Ben Stein notes in the film, "If the evidence of science points us toward God, how exciting is that!" He states it not as a question but as an enthusiastic statement, much like, "Skydiving, how exciting is that!" I would contend that only the Christian or the one who makes room the possibility for an Intelligent Designer is free to follow where the evidence leads.

The Darwinian scientist must always be checking his results to make sure that nothing smacks of the supernatural, for if it did, he might discover the God who is there which would mean, too, that the scientist is a creature responsible to that creator. Hence the panicked pains to distort the evidence.

Science

I just saw "Expelled." Superb movie. But this is not intended to be a review (though if you ask me, I'd be happy to encourage you to see it).

What disturbed me was, like the reviews from an earlier post, the disdain shown toward real scholars who challenge evolution...and the poor schmuck didn't even have to be a Christian. The moment he would challenge any evolutionary concept, he's branded as a religious goof and dismissed from the world of academia.

As this rattled around my cage, I was struck by how much this is happening all around us. For example, my son and I were hammered for 15 minutes before the movie with an infomercial about environmentalism and global warming. It wasn't about being a good steward of the earth we were given. It was about the evils of man and what we need to do to heal the damaged earth. Yikes.

Has anybody noted any media outlet unwilling to bow to those espousing this "environmental holocaust" man has unleashed on the planet? The scientists who speak out against it are dismissed in the public forum. Their shut up and moved aside. You need tune in through the first cycle of commercials to learn that the meteorologists on the WeatherChannel who disagreed with the cause celeb have been efficiently and effectively silenced.

Much during the film discussed the coexistence of science and God. I'll not say religion because that could be anything. I'll not say faith because most folks wrongly divorce faith from reason. I'll say God because He is not merely an idea or a notion. He is. Whether we choose to believe that does not alter that He is.

So until I sit down at this keyboard again, I'll leave you to ponder science and God: Should they coexist? For those who have been sitting through the Francis Schaeffer, "How Should We Then Live?" video series, you have a distinct advantage.

Quote of the Day (QotD): God & Guns

This from Mark Steyn of the National Review and the author of "America Alone" (which just came out in paperback and was one of the finest books I've read so far this millenium):

I think a healthy society needs both God and guns: it benefits from a belief in some kind of higher purpose to life on earth, and it requires a self-reliant citizenry. If you lack either of those twin props, you wind up with today’s Europe — a present-tense Eutopia mired in fatalism. A while back, I was struck by the words of Oscar van den Boogaard, a Dutch gay humanist (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool). Reflecting on the Continent’s accelerating Islamification, he concluded that the jig was up for the Europe he loved, but what could he do? “I am not a warrior, but who is?” he shrugged. “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

Taken from his article "God and Guns" in National Review Online

The Pope

I like the Pope.

Don't stone me yet. There is a very good reason for both Christians and Catholics to like Pope Benedict.

Last summer, Joseph Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict, issued through the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, a branch of the Vatican, a response to some questions regarding the doctrine of the Church (Roman Catholic). Here is the pertinent question:

FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

What did he say? Basically, Benedict plainly declared that the churches that came out of the Reformation cannot be considered true churches. You're still trying to figure out why this makes me giddy, aren't you?

Here's the deal: We finally have a church leader who has the courage to say what most church leaders, Protestant, Catholic, or Oprahnarian, won't. The Catholic church is NOT the Protestant church.

Frankly we're toying with iceberg tips; it goes way beyond apostolic succession which itself doesn't have a whole lot of biblical support. It gets right down to theological basics. Basics about the church. Basics about salvation. Etcetera.

So John Cardinal Ratzinger pierced the bullseye when he drew a stark line between Roman Catholicism and the Church of the Reformation. Apples and oranges.

And here's the rub, folks: Both can't be right! Who's to say? Sure would be nice if there was a standard by which we could determine what the church should look like...Oh yeah! It's called the Bible.

Sola scriptura. Sola fide. Sola gratia. Solus Christus.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Wish I'd have said it

A columnist, especially a conservative columnist, receives mountains of cyber-hate-mail for their positions on various issues. Recently, Mike S. Adams received the following note:

You call yourself a Christian? Jesus Christ would never push people’s buttons the way you do.

You have to understand, Dr. Adams plainly calls sin, sin, and gets in the face of those who try to twist good and evil. Anyway, the note was signed courageously:

Anonymous

Dr. Adams returned volley:

Dear Anonymous:

You are right. Jesus never would have pushed people’s buttons. Had he pushed people’s buttons, they might have crucified him.

Mike S. Adams

Game, set, and match.

Fundamentalist Irony

I hadn't intended on any more blogs on Fundamentalism (at least in the near future), but my pastor's sermon this morning forced my hand.

Pastor Lukus (spelled correctly) mentioned an article attacking Christian fundamentalist thought. Here's the headline:


Granted this is from a state university's daily paper, and the author is an "an adjunct professor of Peace Studies at MU, a member of Veterans for Peace and a member of the national steering committee of Global Action to Prevent War." So it's not exactly the New York Times. Okay, maybe it is. Perhaps some slight toward their objectivity may have played better.

Still, Mr. Wickersham, the author, superbly illustrates the caricature that the world has toward those who hold to fundamentalist Christian doctrine. If you're at all interested, you can read his article here. Some fundamentalist nutball has commented on the article, too.

What made it all the more ironic was that my pastor's sermon was on the very thing that make Wickersham's secularist brain reel, that Jesus Christ will come again to the earth but this time in judgment

Odd that Mr. Wickersham would rage against fundamentalism when the church's creeds have testified to the bodily return of Jesus Christ for judgment from two thousand years.

Anybody seen my snakes?

America?

I came across this during my Bible reading yesterday and thought for a moment that I had inadvertently picked up the newspaper.

1Hear the word of the LORD, O children of Israel,
for the LORD has a controversy with the inhabitants of the land.

There is no faithfulness or steadfast love,
and no knowledge of God in the land;
2 there is swearing, lying, murder, stealing, and committing adultery;
they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed.
3Therefore the land mourns,
and all who dwell in it languish...

Hosea 4:1-3a

Expelled: The Reviews

Today, Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled," hit the theaters. If you didn't know, it is a documentary showing the intolerance toward anyone opposed to Darwinian evolution in the institutes of higher learning. No doubt, you'll get conservatives lauding the movie and evolutionists gnashing their teeth. Sho'nuff.

About 3% of movie critics like it. That should tell you something right there. The rest find it "propaganda, a political rant disguised as a serious commentary on stifled freedom of inquiry." Another was about as kind, " One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, Expelled is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry." These from the people who think Michael Moore is genius (by the way, both are actual quotes from reviews, the latter being the opening line from the NY Times' review).

The tone is venomous! You get a flavor for it above. But from all directions, from the film snobs and from the scientific evolutionists, you get a disdain to the point of loathing toward anyone who would seriously consider the arguments made in the film. Essentially, what the critiques (insults?) boil down to is something like this: "If you find this film at all entertaining, then either you are not smart enough to understand the finer nuances of Darwinian evolution (by the way, is there another kind?), or you've been deluded by your religious myths and fairy tales." Sounds like they've been in touch with Obama's speechwriter.

Looks to me like I'll be taking my challenged IQ and my B-I-B-L-E to the cineplex for a rip-roaring good time. Yee-ha! Pass the popcorn.

God, Government and Social Programs

I vector you toward many, many articles. Here comes yet another.

It wrenches my soul when I hear our elected officials talk about the government handling things that they have no business handling because we the people have abdicated our God-given responsibility to handle those things.

Today, Cal Thomas did a superb job dissecting this topic. Please have a read to help clarify whose responsibility it is (ours) and why the government oughtn't be leaning that way in the first place: "All aboard the God-talk express"

E'08: McCain in the Middle

Fair game, folks. John McCain is looking like he's going to have an easy run at the White House. Why? Because it looks like the Democrats are going to decimate themselves before the DNC even takes place.

Apart from that, will the real John McCain please stand up (can anyone name that TV show)? Three groups, two conservative and one liberal, all indicate that the Arizona senator is to the right of just about every Democrat, but that he tends to vote to the left of Republicans.

Interestingly, all three groups painted the same picture (looking predominantly at his voting record). He's what you'd call a 66% conservative. What's that mean? If he's elected, liberals (progressives?) will shrug, "Eh. Could have been worse," while conservatives will be wincing, "Could've been better."

The Basics of Savings

Every now and then, it's good to reread the basics. That's what came to mind as I read through an article by Carrie Pomerantz. Not only was it a good refresher for me, it's a good Savings 101 for teens, too. Here's the link: "Savings is good, Saving smarter is better"

Fundamentalists Today

Here are some fundamentalists in the news:

1. Latter-Day Saints
2. Muslims
   
3. Christians

What do they all have in common? They passionately believe the writings of their founder...so much so that they strive to behave like their founder did to the maximum extent possible.

Looking at group three briefly, I contend that based upon the writings of the Bible, those groups who picket funerals using vile language are not emulating Jesus in any manner whatsoever. Those who aver, "God hates _______!" (pick your people group), have no clue about the Christ of the Bible. To have the courage to speak against the sin of the land as well as the sin that resides in their own heart and the grace to be found in Jesus' atoning sacrifice is more characteristic of a Christian fundamentalist.

Do those who are being labeled Mormon fundamentalists practice what Joseph Smith preached? Sure seems that way if history is any indicator.

Do those who fight furiously against the secularization and hedonism of Western Civilization mirror the conduct of Muhammed. Ditto.

It's upon the foundation of one of those groups that our nation and Western Civilization was built. Can you guess which one?

E'08: Obama's mouth and foot

Terence Jeffrey summed it up nicely as he tried to figure out Senator Obama and religion:

We now know that there are at least two forms of religion that Barack Obama does not believe in: the religion preached by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who baptized his children, and the religion clung to by the bitter people of Pennsylvania, whose votes he hopes will help make him president of the United States.

This raises a fundamental question: What does Barack Obama believe?

Frankly, he has articulately delineated his position on most issues through his past votes and his previous rhetoric (when nothing was on the line...like the presidency). I guess that's why his voting record shows him to be the furthest left, most socialist-leaning senator in Congress.

E'08: Life & Hillary

Some quotes from Senator Clinton during last night's Compassion Forum got me thinking. Take this one:

"I believe that the potential for life begins at conception."

After reading that I had to go look in the mirror and wonder, by her definition, if I was still potential or had ever become actual.

The next one wasn't much better:

"I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society."

First, I would say that she is searching the wrong things. Second, if government is not about intruding to protect innocent life against violent crime, then there is no government, only self-indulgent chaos.

As the toilet flushes

NBC executive vice president for program scheduling sounded the death nell for "family hour" entertainment in a recent NY Times article.

In explaining NBC's decision to lower the bar of the family hour to new levels of vulgarity, Mitch Metcalf stated,

"It was not to be construed as a return to a strictly defined family hour,” he said, featuring wholesome shows like “Little House on the Prairie,” a hit on NBC in the late 1970s and early ’80s. “Those days and those audience expectations are gone."

No, sir, they are not gone. They are simply waiting for a return to LHotP-like programming. But if you keep serving the kind of fare you currently offer, they'll not return to your commode-shaped food trough.

Fundamentalists: A brief history

Most folks know a "fundamentalist" when they see one; they just have no clue as to why a term that means something seemingly good has become an insult. So before you hurl it again, here's a brief rundown on how "fundamentalist" came to be in the American vernacular.

As the 1800's gave way to the 1900's, intense pressures toward the liberalization of Protestant Christianity began. It began in the universities of Germany and crept across the Atlantic into American scholasticism. "The Bible could not be trusted," they said. "It was nothing more than mythology. Sure Jesus was a great teacher, but deity?!? Come on!"

So attacks focused primarily upon the Bible, the nature of Christ, and the nature of His work. In response, Christian men reasoned from the Bible and history regarding the veracity (truthfulness) of the Bible and regarding the orthodox understanding of Christ and His work.

This response was collected into a series of pamphlets commissioned by Lyman Stewart of Union Oil Company (you've got to love the irony) and edited by R.A. Torrey entitled---are you ready?---"The Fundamentals." In it, Torrey collected what he and others felt was fundamental with regard to being Christian and toward understanding things Christian. Yes, the Bible could be trusted historically, archaeologically, and theologically to be the very word of God. Yes, Jesus Christ claimed to be fully God and fully man and proved that through His miracles, His birth, His life, His death and His resurrection. Yes, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and NO ONE comes to the Father but by Him (His words, not mine or any fundamentalist's).

In some ways, as George Marsden has pointed out in his writings about fundamentalism's history, The Fundamentals were written in response toward a rising prejudice against the supernatural that was manifesting itself in academia. Sadly, William Jennings Bryan, a decade after The Fundamentals were published, made a monkey of himself during the Scopes' Trial and wrongly caused the divorce of the biblical from any other discipline.

When The Fundamentals were published, its adherents became known as "fundamentalists," not in a mocking fashion but as a point of identification. With Scopes, however, the fundamentalist derision began, and it has never abated.

Next up, who wears that label today and why...

Being a "Fundamentalist"

I am a fundamentalist.

What does that mean to label someone a "fundamentalist?" In its purist form, with regard to the topic at hand it means that the person adheres to the fundamentals of that subject.

Tiger Woods is a fundamentalist. Their are certain things about striking a golf ball that must be followed if you are to strike it well. Grip. Take back. Torso torque. Weight shift. Weight transition. Getting the clubface square at impact. Follow through.

More than that, he's a stickler when it comes to the rule book. You break the rules, you will pay with strokes or disqualification. Without the rules, you have golf anarchy, and the Masters would not be the Masters.

Here's an interesting point: within the realm of golf fundamentalism, there exists extraordinary freedom. Despite the fundamentals, golfers have nuanced swings, nuanced grips. Golf equipment lies on the cutting edge of technology. Does anybody even own a 3- or 4-wood anymore? Considering I could probably not play Augusta National below 100, the fact that most the folks out there today will better that by 30 swings testifies to the variety and freedom within fundamentalist golf.

I am a fundamentalist about many things. You are a fundamentalist, too, though perhaps not in the same areas I am. You may be fundamentalist about your job. In what areas of your life are you passionate about the fundamentals? I contend that adhering to the fundamentals will yield the purest form of the activity in which we find ourselves involved.

I'd love to continue to write at this point, but I'd lose most of you. The next few blogs will take this further. Why the "fundamentalist" insult? Where does that come from? How do we see fundamentalism, good and bad, in the world around us? Until then...

The Texas "Sect"

Has anybody else wondered why the mainstream media refuses to use "Mormon" or "Latter Day Saints" when referring to the polygamist compound in Texas? What gives?

(An afterthought: Do you remember David Koresh and his Texas cult? Do you remember their name? Few can separate the names Koresh and Waco from the cult, the Branch Davidians. Why the pass today that's given to a sect of Mormonism?)

E'08: Your "Rights"

What are your "rights" as enumerated in the Constitution? Can you fill one hand?

Neal Boortz's recent column provided a thinking example of how we need to be considering our rights as we go into the election season. Click the link and enjoy a really brief read: Who's "Right"?

E'08: Thinking

As the election approaches, I hear more and more about responses from folks about the issues that come forth from their bellies, their loins or their wallets, but not so much from their brains.

Most issues spark tons of emotions from folks. It's like the psych exam where the doc says, "I'll say a word or phrase and you say the first thing that pops into your mind." Here are a few:

1. Healthcare
2. Education
3. Race
4. Religion
5. War
6. Social Security

I have no doubt if you are one spending your time reading this post that you have also read about the various issues enumerated above (and others). Few of us have considered the matter beyond the NBC soundbite. A columnist recently wrote, "What is more scary than any particular candidate or policy is the gullibility of the public and their willingness to be satisfied with talking points, rather than serious arguments."

Let us be discerning!

Aging...a true story

After returning from one of my flights, the other instructor I flew with, "Juggler," asked me if I missed his response to my first gas check. Usually the flight lead (in this case me) will check his wingman's gas total shortly after takeoff, a couple of times in the operating area, and on the return to base.

After pondering his question, I said, "I don't think so. Why?"

He came back, "You asked me my gas and then a couple minutes later you asked me again."

I shook my head and laughed. "Juggler, I'm 45 years old. Be happy I didn't ask you three times."

MLK

40 years ago today the civil rights leader was tragically murdered in Memphis. Some questions:

1. Has our nation made strides toward their being "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free" or has racism gone completely rampant the other way?


2. Would Dr. King spend time hanging with Reverend Wright or with Bill Cosby?


3. Where have the pleas gone across cultures for responsible citizenship? Where are the cries for familial responsibility?

Frankly, the racism I have noted in the past few weeks, in the news and on the bus, troubles me. The division widens...of our own choosing.

Ewww, that smell!

As if network television hasn't slid far enough into the septic tank, NBC has plans for it's third hour of evening programming (9 p.m. Central) to be "adult themed." As with "adult film" and "adult periodicals," I suspect NBC's hour will cross lines unimaginable 30 years ago.

Let's hear it for Netflix and movie classics!

E'08: The Right to Bear Arms

The adage goes that if you make gun ownership illegal, the only ones who will be left with weapons will be the criminals. A corollary to that would be if the citizenry is not allowed to carry a concealed weapon, the only ones carrying will be the crooks.

Amanda Carpenter's TownHall article included the quote: “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Barack Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

Innocent people will certainly get hurt if nobody has the means to thwart an assailant. Reality does not support Mr. Obama. The armed citizen, rather than causing further chaos, can bring resolution to otherwise desperate situations.

Perhaps he meant he was not in favor of concealed weapons for criminals. Perhaps. Perhaps cows will fly.

Military Wit & Wisdom...not an oxymoron

Got this from a friend. Good for a few smiles...

'If the Enemy is in range, so are you.'
- Infantry Journal

'It is generally inadvisable to eject over the area you just bombed'
- U.S. Air Force Manual

'Aim towards the Enemy'
- Instructions printed on U.S. Rocket Launcher

'When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend.'
- U.S Marine Corps

'Whoever said the pen is mightier then the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.'
- General MacArthur

'Tracers work both ways.'
- U.S. Army Ordnance

'Five second fuses only last three seconds'
- Infantry Journal

'If your attack is going too well, you're walking into an ambush.'
- Infantry Journal

'Any ship can be a minesweeper. Once.'
- unknown

'Never tell the Platoon Sergeant you have nothing to do '
- Unknown Marine Recruit

'Don't draw fire; it irritates the people around you.'

'The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.'

'Blue water Navy truism: There are more planes in the ocean than submarines in the sky.'
- From an old carrier sailor

'If the wings are traveling faster than the fuselage, it's probably a helicopter -- and therefore,unsafe.'

'When one engine fails on a twin-engine airplane, you always have enough power left to get you to the scene of the crash.'

'What is the similarity between air traffic controllers and pilots? If a pilot errs, the pilot dies; If ATC errs...the pilot dies.'

'Weather forecasts are horoscopes with numbers.'

Basic Flying Rules: 'Try to stay in the middle of the air. Do not go near the edges of it. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of ground, buildings, sea, trees and interstellar space. It is much more difficult to fly there.'