Green jackets: Women at Augusta National

If sports isn't your gig, you may have missed that Augusta National, home of one of the most prestigious events in all of sport, The Masters, will be admitting women to the formerly all-male club. Yep, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and another woman, the CEO for some company, will be donning the green jacket later this fall.

Needless to say, the MSM lauds the decision like it is some kind of Emmancipation Proclamation. ESPN's Rick Reilly took the opportunity to stick his thumbs in his ears and nyah-nyah the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of Great Britain for being some kind of Neanderthal organization of club-wielding maroons because they haven't entered the twenty-first century and retain their all-male status. With his nose at an altitude approaching geo-synchronous orbit, he avers that this male only policy "has to change."

The question must come back, "Why?"

Let's drive right to the heart of fundamental freedoms. Can a private group on private land admit and restrict any from membership for any reason that they choose? If you say no, why do you say no?

Can Boy Scouts be for boys only? Can Girl Scouts be for girls? If not, why not?

Here's the rub. Men and women are different. Were you watching the Olympics? Is it sexist to have women's gymnastics and men's gymnastics? And in other sports, when has a top of her game woman ever been able to compete with the top of his game man? We are different, but not just physically.

There is something to be said for male-bonding, for the fostering of esprit and fellowship. There was a time when such was welcomed, when in such organizations and fellowships the ideas of constitutional republics and free enterprise were honed. Why in the name of all that is sacred would we besmirch such an entity and neuter its very existence by admitting a woman?

From the dark depths of the human heart (Jeremiah 17:9) comes this covetousness (pronounced "kuhv-i-tuhs-ness"), this green-eyed envy for the green jacket that another wears. Being born in poverty does not give anyone any right to Bill Gates' fortune. Being born with certain reproductive plumbing does not give me the right to compete in women's olympic volleyball. None. Them's just the cards we've been dealt.

So should we rejoice because feminist groups and the liberal media have pressured August National to alter its very identity, or should we weep? 

Me? I'm a bumming unit.

The failure of 21st century Hollywood

In a nutshell, film directors have forgotten how to tell a story.

Because of dependence upon CGI and gore that would disturb a coroner and sex that would shock a hooker, not to filming with a leftist slant that makes LBJ look conservative, movie makers provide us little reason to want to shell out big coin and take our families to the multiplex.

Christian Toto, in a piece for Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood (here, with a great video about Robert Shaw), made these very points as he reviewed the Blu-Ray release of Jaws.

If "Jaws" came out today, and it's a miracle some thick-headed studio exec hasn't already greenlit a remake, the shark would look so realistic audiences wouldn't be able to tell the movie shark from the real McCoy. And, most likely, the film's storytelling would suffer as a result.

Why bother writing a great script or indelible characters when all movie goers will be talking about are the special effects long after the lights turn back on in the theater?

Heck, Spielberg himself admits as much during the release's copious "making of" features. The director couldn't rely on "Bruce" the shark for extended closeups or elaborate poses. So he showed less of it, and the result was far more frightening than any CGI shark.

Great CGI + lame story + lame characters + lame dialogue = 2012 Hollywood.

The door's wide open for any who care to craft a good story. Don't tell me. Show me. Toto highlights a great line of dialogue that captures that essence. As Richard Dreyfus' character gets ready to be a diver-in-a-can lunch snack for Bruce the Shark, rather than state the obvious, "I'm scared to death and pre-wet my wetsuit" he states simply, "I got no spit" as he tries to defog his swim mask. Scared. To. Death.

Interesting, too, that 1970's Steven Spielberg removed the graphic adultery of Peter Benchley's novel in crafting the screenplay for the movie. Minus the shadowed girl running naked into the waves at the start of the movie, there is little to object to in Jaws. A terrifying story told with exquisite mastery.

Are you ready to go back into the water?

For love of the game

Time for a deep breath deep in the heart of baseball season.

I have developed what some may consider an unhealthy fondness for baseball.  Odd since I never played the game after the first year after t-ball when the kids pitched. Though the ball had nary enough momentum to make it to the plate, the thought of getting beaned turned me to a four-foot-nothin' molehill of cowardice. I played some softball as an adult; no worries getting hit by a pitch with an eight-foot arc unless it's a Barry Zito curve ball.

I used to play catch with my sons, too. All of them did some pitching, and when they were younger, I would play catcher for them. Until I could hear the pitch coming. A crazy whine that ball makes as the laces cut through the air. Like a mini-buzz saw. We were past our days having kids, but I still thought better of crouching there, all unprotected and such, just waiting for a wild pitch to catch me in the teeth. Or worse.

I love to watch the game. I love to keep score when I attend. I have loved the Twins well, and I now love the Rangers having lived in Texas now for half my adult life. No, don't ask me to be a Cowboys fan. Some lines I will not cross. While on a temporary assignment at Luke AFB on the west side of the Phoenix, Arizona mass of humanity, some friends and I went to a Diamondbacks' game. One of the friends was German, and he had never been. He hated it, much like I expect I would loathe a professional soccer game. I contend, though, that he doesn't understand it.  How can you not love baseball?

So I offer up some just-past-mid-season ballpark fare for your August enjoyment. The first is a video about the science of the most amazing catch of the year. The second is a great article about Mike Trout, the man who made the catch and who will be the Rookie of the Year and may be the AL MVP. The third is an article by Tim Kurkjian, a baseball analyst for ESPN whose insights into the game I could listen to for hours every day of the week and twice on Sunday. His nasal delivery and wide-eyed, little-boy excitement (he does make our Olympic gymnasts look tall) could make cross-stitching captivating. He talks at length, through interviews and anecdotes, about what it's like to get hit by a 90-mile per hour baseball.

Here's the video...




...the Trout article is here...

...and the beanball article is here. By the way, there's an interesting companion video from the sports science guys alongside Kurkjian's article about getting beaned.

Hope your week is richly blessed.

Conceal carry: "You'll have to leave that in the car"

Does it strike you as ironic (tragic may be a better word) that the locations chosen for mass murders by gunmen are places that citizens are not permitted to carry concealed weapons themselves?


Many theaters ban those who have a concealed handgun license (CHL) from doing so on their premises.


Colleges and universities ban those who have a CHL from doing so on their premises.


So, too, hospitals.


Such folks cannot carry on the grounds of public education, elementary through high school.


The only mass murder in Texas in recent memory occurred on, of all places, a military installation (Fort Hood) where it is--you guessed it--illegal to carry. Let's see, when I flew the F-16, I was entrusted to take off carrying 500 rounds of live 20mm ammunition and 4000 pounds of high explosives and to not drop them on an American city, but I can't carry my 9mm with me on base???


I agree that not just anyone should be allowed to tote a weapon into these locations, but for those who have been through the screening and the training, I'm at a loss for why folks cannot carry in these places?


There are two locations here in Texas that I somewhat understand and can abide when it comes to banning firearms.  One is in establishments where liquor accounts for over 51% of the sales. You wouldn't want some guy getting all liquored up and bandying his .45 about lamenting Leona Mae's leaving him. The other is in stadium events where security is already very tight. And in reality, a case could be made for carrying in those locations, too.


The tidbit of logic that seems to escape the gun-controllers is that when guns are banned in a particular location, the only people who won't tote a gun into that place are law abiding citizens. A "NO GUNS ALLOWED" sign isn't going to slow a crook or a nut job for a picosecond, and then you've just opened up the folks therein, those you were trying to protect in the first place, to criminal mischief.

A few years back, while visiting my mom in Wisconsin, we stopped by an A & W Root Beer diner. It happened to be the week that Wisconsin began its foray into CHL life. Needless to say, the lefties around Madison were coming unglued.


On the door of the A & W of all places was a very legal "no guns allowed" sign. While we drowned ourselves in icy cold, on-tap root beer, I took the opportunity to chat with the manager.


"I saw your sign banning folks from carrying firearms into your establishment."


"Yes, sir," she responded.


"Do you understand that folks who have a CHL have to go through training and a background check to be able to carry their weapon?"


"No sir, I didn't," she answered honestly.


"Do you understand that law-abiding folks, when they see your sign, will respect the wishes of your establishment and leave their guns in their vehicles, but that sign will do absolutely nothing to thwart criminals from toting their .357 into your establishment and robbing you blind?"


"Um..."


"Did you know that the only reason I carry is to protect my family from harm, and that your sign prevents me from doing that and potentially from protecting any of your customers from harm?"


"Gee, sir, I hadn't thought of it that way. The owners of the establishment had those signs put up but I will pass on to them your concerns.  Thank you."


"My pleasure," for it truly was.


Is it really that hard? CHL folks aren't looking for the first opportunity to pull a John Wayne and start shooting up the place. You see, John never did that. Bad guys do that. John Wayne pulled his gun when the bad guys pulled theirs (like this).


If anything, the nightmare in Aurora should ease the constraints upon those who carry and not further restrict them. Further restrictions will only delight the thugs and endanger the citizens.


That's dumber than rocks.

Bigots in Beantown

What has happened is this: the sitting mayor of Boston essentially said "We don't serve your kind here" to a company that has prided itself on serving anyone but at the same time being unwavering about living out the biblical principles upon which the company is founded. Chicago's boss, Rahm Emmanuel echoed the sentiment's of Boston's mayor.


At Chick-fil-A, such a position is not a contradiction. They will serve any and hire any, but they will not give a thumbs up to things that run contrary to what the Bible says.


And that's what people don't get about Christianity and Christ. How can those apart from Christ act like Christ? They can't. This is why it is foolish for a Christian to get his knickers in a knot because someone uses profanity around them or because he hears that two co-workers spent the night wrestling beneath the sheets. It is the nature of the lost to live lost.


At the same time, such an understanding doesn't nullify--in fact it highlights--that those apart from Christ stand in rebellion to their Creator. I cannot condone your lifestyle. I will not say it's a question of equal choices anymore than killing twelve in a theater is the same as killing twelve on the battle field.


Chick-fil-A is convinced that a one man and one woman relationship for life is God's design, that it is the healthy building block for a healthy society. You differ in that position? I would say, bummer, but at the same time, it doesn't change the fact that you are welcome at their establishment, will be treated courteously at their establishment, and might actually find the quality of their food quite good for fast food.


True freedom on The Freedom Trail would have opened welcoming arms to Chick-fil-A and would have stated, "We vehemently disagree with the fundamentals of your company, but let's let the free market have its way." Homosexuals should recognize that saying you live in sin and being bigoted are two different things. One cares about you and loves you enough to tell you your conduct is harmful like saying "smoking three packs a day will kill you." The other will have nothing to do with you, will not hire you, will not work with you, and will not serve you because of what you do. 


Which promotes greater freedom, not permitting you to build your business because of what you believe or hiring and serving you regardless of what you believe while at the same time encouraging you to choose another way?


Christ had no problem associating with the sinners because it was the sick who needed the physician. At the same time, the Son of God with a calm command and authority said, "Go and sin no more." Loving the sinner. Hating the sin.


And so I will go to the best mechanic and doctor I can find with no thought to ideology.


I will eat at restaurants that serve good food and treat me with respect and dignity (even if they were to discover I was a Bible-believing Fundie).


But when I worship, it's a different story, but even there, in a free country founded upon those really wacky Christian principles, I have a free choice about where, what, and who I will worship.  At least for now.


Keep your ears to the ground. Listen to the response of Chick-fil-A and its supporters, listen to what's coming out of Beantown, Second City, and Hollywood, and ask yourself, "Who's the bigot?"

Chick-fil-A anti-gay? Really?!

I had other things to do this morning, but vent I must.

A few days ago, I read an article about Dan Cathy, current president of Chick-fil-A and son of founder, S. Truett Cathy (you can read it here if you wish. I thought it a great article about a man who tries to live out biblical principles in his life and in his work. It is his company, for pity's sake. He makes plain that it's not a Christian company, there can only be Christian people ("Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me"), but he goes on to say,

"...As an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us."

Within the article, he responds to a question about how Chick-fil-A has been opposed by liberal and homosexual America for encouraging the traditional family (i.e. husband and wife, if you've forgotten). His response:

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that."

Because of such audacious statements, homosexual America has erupted. In a blog on the Huffington Post (here), Cathy is referred to as anti-gay and as thinking that everyone must be a Christian. They find it shocking that one who holds a biblical world view would support other organizations that do so as well, to include one organization that tries to help those who struggle with homosexual attractions. The article lauded universities for "squashing" plans for on-campus Chick-fil-A's.

Here is where we are as a nation. Many believe that a Christian man should not be able to run his company by Christian principles. He he should not be able to declare conduct or actions good or harmful based upon the clear teaching of the Bible. Cathy stands upon biblical principles. It is getting to be in our country where you are permitted to stand anywhere but upon those.

Ah, the tolerance of the tolerant.

(Of interest, I don't believe a homosexual has ever been denied service in any of his establishments. That would be something Cathy would not tolerate. For more on our widening national divide, go here.)

The aged Lady

Ah, Madam,

What has become of you?

That was then, this is now. Yes, certainly. But the fabric of the gown you wore when you were young, the one woven of titanium, indestructible, but with a delicacy that revealed your natural beauty, is a tattered mess. You seem stooped. The years have begun to catch up.

Having just past a birthday, I cannot help but think back, and really, your birth was a miracle. Disparate colonies. What did Massachusetts have in common with Virginia beyond a tyrant king? Nothing like a common enemy to drive together a people so different.  And yet, not so different. A biblical Christianity stood as the foundation for the lives of the majority of citizens from north to south. Agrarian livelihoods dominated your young limbs, and even those in the cities--hamlets, really--had extensive ties to the country. Your people read well, read often, read much, and read broadly. Today we read very little unless it's in text shorthand.

Four score and five years into your existence, it seemed that your body would rip itself in two at the navel. The Civil War should have killed you. Consider France. A beautiful country if you look at her skin. Beneath the surface she's schizophrenic and rotted to the core. Seems to have always been that way. Every time she tries to set things right, her own self-interest ruins the day. No principle. No foundation. But, Madam, when your lower extremities began to pull away from your upper, you destroyed the disease, and quite miraculously left both your body and it's soul intact. Extraordinary.

We now stand 150 years removed from that time. For most today, the War Between the States compels our attention if a movie enacts what happened, and then only if they twist history to include vampires. The greatest tragedies and lessons from our past become a backdrop for a horror story.

Today, your atrophied muscles and fragile frame seem to be more like those of France than the strong stature with which you stood as you hurtled toward the Civil War. I believe you stand more starkly divided today than you did then. In 1860, your division was linear, along Mason and Dixon. Now your division seems total with neighboring fingers at war with one another. When we talk red and blue, there does seem to be some polarity along the coasts with moles of blue within the cities dotting the deep red of your midsection, but on the whole, your body is a checkerboard of oil and water, Hatfield and McCoy.

Today, you are racially divided. Back then, the conflict raged between white Anglos in the north and white Anglos in the south. There did not exist a racial hostility or hatred. Yes, there was prejudice and bigotry where many felt light skin superior to dark, European ancestry superior to African, but it was not so much that white hated black or black hated white. The seeds of racial hatred--sowed where?--have blossomed into a hemlock rash that has covered your body. It seems that there is a political element to this disease, too, as the lion's share of animosity seems to come from blue toward red. Go figure, considering the red fought so passionately against the blue to end slavery.

Today, you are morally divided. Some consider the killing of a baby in the womb an issue of personal liberty. "Who are you to tell me what I am to do with my body?" as though ending a life in the sanctuary of the womb were no different than getting a flower or butterfly tattoo. On another moral front, many hold to the God-given institution of marriage between one man and one woman while others suggest that the government should let any mix or multiplicity of partners be considered a marriage.

Today, you are economically divided. In all honesty, you're not, but those with the loudest microphones have convinced the masses that you are a nation of lords and serfs and that the oppression of the lords is far worse than anything seen throughout the Middle Ages. Looking at your economic situation, your people are far better off than they have ever been in history. Your people have more wealth, especially in the lower economic stratus, than has ever been known on this planet. There is not a want of food. Rare is the instance of starvation. None serve under the whip. None have hours mandated by a cruel boss that they cannot quit or cannot leave. None are manacled to the machine. And yet, the idea of unfair, unjust division between rich and poor is as rampant as racial hatred.

Today, you are spiritually divided. Despite the disagreements about the Bible (dizzying to think that some actually advocated slavery as practiced in 19th Century America as a good from the pages of Scripture), the country of the 1800's could appeal to the word of God to discern the way of righteousness. By and large, America has rejected the Bible as an authority for really anything to include spiritual things. Few read it. Fewer heed it. Few preachers, pastors and priests believe it to be the inspired, inerrant word of God. What then do they preach? And why bother? Might as well go to the lake on Sunday. And really, we are largely secular, espousing no religion or embracing a non-offensive, impotent, pick-your-god spirituality. You want to appeal to a moral authority? You'll not find an American consensus in the heavenlies.

Today, you are culturally divided. The only taboo that remains is stating that there is a taboo. No sexual boundaries remain. The only language considered profane is stating anything positive about Jesus Christ or his church. Regarding violence, the human body has been tortured, exploded, slashed, gashed, flayed, slayed, dissolved, dissected, burned, poked, prodded, maimed--you get the idea. Gone are the days when it is clearly a stuffed dummy tumbling down the cliff. No longer will the cowboy grip his chest and fall to the ground. No, we need to see the slow motion spray of blood and matter from the exit wound on his head from seven different angles. Thanks so much.  Many long for good story-telling coupled with discretion, telling more with less. Others long for more of the profane.

Today, you are constitutionally divided. I would say "politically divided," but it's not about politics, the art of compromise. It's about how your government should function. Do we follow the Constitution as the Founders intended, or do we follow the Constitution as it suits us in 2012--no, 2013--no, wait, 2014? If the latter, then you are France, and God help you. I do not believe that even the staunchest Federalist of the late 1700's could imagine the massive and horrifying tumor that would become the Federal government of the 21st century and how it would be destroying your soul. And yet, many today think it should be bigger and have greater control over our lives. Others think it should be razed and rebuilt, brick by brick, upon the very documents that gave you life at the beginning. Which is it?

So back to my opening salvo, what has become of you? And more troubling, what will become of you?

With each of these divisions, there seems to be little to no common ground upon which to stand or even grab some footing. We do not even agree upon a common enemy. Is it poverty? Is it sloth? Is it corporate America? Is it government intrusion? Is it Christian fundamentalists? Or is it Islamic fundamentalists? Is what's happening in Europe good or bad? Is it the Yankees or the Red Sox? We might hope for a common enemy, but even when we were brutally attacked, we lacked the courage to declare that enemy by name.

Your face has grown ashen and it seems that your pulse has weakened. I would love to see you stand tall again, hale and robust, full of color and the glory of a people submitted to the principles woven into your Declaration and your Constitution. Will another election matter? Will it change anything? Can such wide chasms be closed? Or will you finally tear yourself apart?

It seems you have a malignance beyond healing. We see the problem, we feel the problem, but we are powerless to stop the demise. Can anyone from Bangor to Burbank reassemble this crystalline structure shattered into 300 million pieces? It is beyond our reach.

And so I plead with the One who heals to turn your heart back to him. Only God can restore to you a richer and purer beauty than you once had.

I pray to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for that day.

The ramblings of a few deists

Another 4th come and gone. Fireworks. Baseball. Hot dog gorgings (in our case, grilled pizza). I hope that a sizable share of our people took a moment or two to consider what happened 236 years ago when men pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Perhaps they even step-stoned from here to there upon other events that figure so gravely upon our freedoms.


We hear of history being rewritten, and for many, the concern extends to our children. What kind of country will we leave them if they cannot know nor understand the roots of their nation? Most who fear the alteration of our national heritage worry about America's religious underpinnings being erased from our national memory.


Unfortunately, when Party A raises an issue of concern regarding the conduct of Party B, don't be surprised when Party B turns the tables and accuses Party A of being the real point of concern.


Consider the example of rewriting history. The secularists are trying to prune religion from our national tree, right? Oh, no. It's the religionists who are trying to neuter the secular cornerstones that our Founders laid. Or so says a secularist:

"This country wasn't founded on Christian principles, BTW. The founding fathers were, at the very least, agnostic. Archived letters from Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, etc all espouse a secular state. They all ridiculed what was happening in Europe. It's unfortunate how our history has been distorted to weave religion into its fabric. I'm all for freedom of religion until it encroaches on my own freedom/rights."

Ah, the threat of archived letters. Such an appeal to authority often comes from those who really haven't looked into the authority to which they are appealing. From stem to stern you'll not find a more godly man than John Adams nor a more godless man than Ben Franklin. At the same time, Mr. Franklin appealed often to the powers of Providence and its (his) affects on the affairs of men. Why would he appeal to Thomas Paine to reconsider his ardently secular writings (here)? Why else would he appeal to prayer during the Constitutional Convention (here)?

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a bye word down to future age... 

...I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.

Ah, Ben, you old dotard, you can't say stuff like that!

Apart from Ben and Tom Jefferson, no other Founder has been so indicted as being an anti-religionist as George Washington. "At best, he was a deist," you will heard cast about. His farewell address to our nation, after two amazing terms as our first president, paints a far different picture.


As he listed the pillars upon which our nation must stand, Washington declared:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

That's pretty strong language for a guy who presumably--sort of, kind of--thinks that there's an unnameable, unknowable "deity."


Earlier in his address, Washington described the American people, the audience of his farewell address, in this manner:

With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.

This supports the conviction that when our Founders spoke of religion, they spoke of Christianity, and when Congress was to make no law respecting an establishment of religion, that it was toward giving preference to a specific denomination that the Amendment referred.


How about ol' Thomas Jefferson, the guy who cut his Bible to pieces? Etched in marble within his memorial for all to see (and about which atheists cringe) are these writings of TJ. On the southwest wall:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men. We...solemnly publish and declare, that these colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states...And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour. 

On the northwest wall: 

Almighty God hath created the mind free...All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively. 

And the northeast wall:

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than these people are to be free. Establish the law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state to effect and on a general plan.

And to think that Memorial was erected in the middle of the last century. Consider what it would look like if it were built today and the quotes that would be included. 

A Christian nation? We were. As our nation has rejected the authority of Almighty God in its life, our Constitution and our principle documents have become increasingly meaningless. That is not how it began. Yes, quotes can be plucked out of context. You could make Reagan sound like a communist and Obama sound pro-life. Let none say, though, that our Founders were a secular lot. Based upon much of what they wrote, that's just not true.

The Story of the Star Spangled Banner

David Barton tells the story of how a lawyer penned a poem that would become our nation's anthem.

Thoughts on government (or whatever you call what's been going on in Washington),

Last week, I came across a number of pithy sayings about government. As you read them, you might think someone penned the maxims last week after watching our government act like The Three Stooges. No, they were written a long time ago by one with a keen eye and a unique perspective on the machinations of government.

(I imagined Larry as the Judicial Branch, Moe as the Executive Branch, and Curly as the Legislative Branch though he looks a lot like VP Biden in this shot)

For your enjoyment and meditation. 

ON GOVERNMENT

"When the righteous increase, the people rejoice,

but when the wicked rule, the people groan."

That one may lack the zip of a Letterman zinger, but that truth satisfies to the marrow. Folks might party like its 1999 when a ruler begins his term, but governing is a marathon and not a sprint. At the end of four years (do I hear eight?), it says a lot when folks on your own team wonder what is going on. On the flip side, many decry the religiosity of the pious, but when people govern themselves either apart or within the law, the government has little to do. Dockets are empty. No need for more law when the people are a law unto themselves and they live out love for their fellow man. Peace and tranquility rule the day.

Had to think of this next one this last week.

"By justice a king builds up the land,

but he who exacts gifts (or taxes heavily) tears it down."

And what about the poor? You know the right cares nothing for the poor, right? Everyone says so, right?

"A righteous man knows the rights of the poor,

a wicked man does not understand such knowledge."

"If a king faithfully judges the poor,

his throne will be established forever."

We say much about the impoverished, and unfortunately, most just emote. Heartstrings do little to alleviate problems. These two axioms emphasize justice and rights. Eating is not a right, it's a need. A great and godly man once said, "If you will not work, you will not eat." That's a necessary and a tough love. Notice the latter saying above doesn't suggest that free meals will establish the king's throne. Nor is medical insurance on the table. The one thing the government must secure for the poor is equal justice under objective law.

Next.

"Scoffers set a city aflame,

but the wise turn away wrath."

Idiots. Hooligans. Our media would rather use the term "disgruntled youth" or "impoverished youth." If it's happening in Europe, you often find an imam in the shadows. Amazing and rare is the man who can get people to listen to and understand ideas. You might call such a man Reaganesque.

"If a wise man has an argument with a fool, 

the fool only rages and laughs,

and there is no quiet."

I'll not even pick a side in this one but offer you a challenge. Pick your favorite cable news network, and watch the discourse for fifteen minutes. Then flip over to the others (think CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC alphabetically), and grant equal time. Then consider who best exemplifies that aforementioned aphorism. Do you see a consistency in the ones raging? Yes, I've seen them on both sides and am ashamed when those arguing my position act like third-graders, but it seems that one team is made up largely of those who cannot make their point without venom and condescension. Who do you think best argues points on the right and the left? Would you like to have coffee with both of those individuals?

Next.

"Bloodthirsty men hate one who is blameless

and seek the life of the upright."

"An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous,

but one whose way is straight is an abomination to the wicked."

George Bush (43) came to mind with these last two. While disappointed with his second term in office and the way he governed, the one thing I could not impugn was his character. I have never heard in my 49 years such loathing toward a person. I even had a Christian friend who, when he spoke of the former President, held such a contempt for the man that it startled me.


Each of these Proverbs--and Proverbs they are*--points in a direction other than the one toward which our nation is hurtling. As we approach our nation's 236th birthday, we would do well to consider where we are going. Once you get the boulder tumbling down a hill, little will slow it down and the destruction can be massive.


We remain a government of the people. While you still have a voice in this process and small though it may be, please, make yours heard in your home, in your workplace, in your neighborhood and in your church. It's time to put the two taboos, religion and politics, back on the table for discussion.


Happy Fourth!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

*Cards on the table. Each of these adages come from Proverbs 29 (vv. 2, 4, 7, 14, 8, 9, 10, 27 in the order above). Truly, blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord (Psalm 33:12-19)