Chris Hedges is still in the lead as America's most extreme Christophobic. What is Christophobia? It's a an extreme and irrational aversion to historic Christianity and Bible-believing Christian people. Think homophobia, only against Christians.
Hedges is a dangerous man. How so? As you watch this clip you'll see why. At the very end he says, "they're coming after us" (imagine the psychiatrist leaning over the couch and saying, "Who, Mr. Hedges? Who's coming to get you?").
People this paranoid resort to dangerous measures. Paranoid schizophrenics are known to harm or kill loved ones because they think their own friends and family are out to get them. They can't seem to turn off the voices in their heads that incessantly whisper, "They're coming to get you!"
People like Hedges are not safe. He will not harm himself, or his constituency. Rather, he will inspire drastic measures amongst his constituency. The Left makes much of men like Paul J. Hill or Eric Rudolph. They don't realize they can create their own vigilantes. It's better to shoot a dominionist leader than allow them to gain any more political control. Whoa! Wait a minute. Now I sound like Hedges!
It won't get that far. People like Hedges are isolated, and their hatred for the Bible will only bring them into more entanglement with their espoused enemies. His sheer disdain and ridicule of faithful Christians will keep him a marginal voice in the national debate.
If Mr. Hedges was genuinely concerned, he would seek a conversation with his feared opponent. Guys like Hedges won't do that. To speak with a dominionist is to make a dominionist human; that would be disastrous for book sales!
Answers provided by Martin Selbrede, Chalcedon Vice-President
Has your organisation identified an area of interest that seems to be the most suitable for current reconstruction, for example the area of education?
We believe that education is indeed a critical area: not only education of our children, but of adults. But we don't see education as humanists see it: as a tool of social engineering (which drives the centralizing trend within humanistic statism which conflicts with reconstruction's emphasis on de-centralization). The key is to see education in the proper light, and then to conduct it on as Biblically consistent a basis as is possible.
The error here, while understandable, still creates unintended consequences. The fundamental institution, as Christian Reconstruction understands the Biblical teaching concerning this question, is the family. Failure to reconstruct the Christian family will render most other gains temporary and/or irrelevant.
A point too often lost is the one Van Til made: if man were confronted by the witness of God everywhere, but could avoid that witness by pushing a single button, man would keep his finger on that button 24-7. As I argued in a lecture in Atlanta in 2005 at the 40th Annual Chalcedon Conference, if every field and discipline had been reconstructed with the exception of respiratory pharmacology, every humanist would want to become a respiratory pharmacologist. There can be no exceptions to the extent of Christ's lordship -- any such holes will become safe retreats for humanists, to whom Paul explicitly denies the availability of alibis or excuses. Therefore, any reconstruction approaches that forfeit some areas to concentrate on others deemed "more important" will nonetheless provide a backdoor escape hatch for humanism. We are to work to see every thought brought into captivity, not just selected thought, or socio-political thought, but EVERY thought. My argument last year at a conference in Lynchburg, Virginia summed it up this way in a key Powerpoint slide: "Your totalism is not total enough." In that lecture, which was delivered in two sessions of over an hour each, I illustrated how to take the field of linguistic science captive to Christ. In the course of that lecture, I demonstrated precisely how critical this neglected field is, and how it controls our thinking by providing a humanistic framework for the actual communication of thought itself. "The Law of Unintended Consequences," when applied to the fact that "all things cohere in Christ," indicates that when decoherence is taught (e.g., as in "it is safe to accept this subject as taught by humanists"), we end up "limiting the Holy One of Israel" in the process, and defaulting to a humanistic status quo. Full-bore reconstruction is cross-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary, and should resist the temptation to place undue emphasis on one field over against another. Ministers of reconciliation shouldn't play the triage game. I conducted an extended exposition of Proverbs 21:4 in Atlanta ("...the plowing of the wicked is sin"), indicating that even in supposedly "neutral" contexts, the discipline in question (plowing, in this instance, which is an agricultural matter) is in desperate need of reconstruction, while the fact that there can be a godly approach to plowing is made explicit in the extended discussion appearing in Isaiah 28:23-29.
Sheryl Crow didn't say much, but the Jewish Laurie David bullied the kind queries of this television interviewer as he probed the plausibility of global warming. These women are obviously uninformed and incapable of any scientific response to basic facts that contradict the allegation that human use of CO2 is ushering us into the end of the world.
Answers provided by Martin Selbrede, Chalcedon Vice-President
Q. Where do you see the influence of Reconstructionism most clearly in the past and today?
I should point out that "being influential" had better NOT be a goal for Christian Reconstruction: after all, Jeremiah ministered for 20 years and got virtually nowhere: his ministry from the viewpoint of "influence" was a colossal failure. However, he did everything God asked him to do, and was utterly faithful to his calling. In the same vein, Christian Reconstructionists are (or should be) more interested in being faithful stewards of the most compellingly Biblical approach to applying the Scriptures to the world at large, and then to let the unleashing of that Word be the ultimate source of influence.
Allow me to quote at length from an article of mine published in late 2005 in regard to this question:
In one of my talks at Chalcedon's recent 40th Anniversary Conference in Georgia, I alluded to a question posed to me by a Bay Area atheist group during a telephone interview the month before. The atheists were curious how I would measure the success of Christian Reconstruction. From their reaction to my answers, I'd guess that they expected me to wax enthusiastic over the supposed impact the Christian Right has had on national politics in general, and on the Republican Party in particular. None of these indices found their way into my response to the atheists, who expected me to couch my reply in statist terms (a framework they appear to find both intelligible and credible). Confounding statist expectations, I proposed two goals that, if met, would signal the success of Christian Reconstruction. I further insisted that until these two goals were achieved, any other alleged "successes" of Christian Reconstruction would, like bandaids applied to a compound fracture, be mere window dressing: superficial, meaningless, and ephemeral.
What two things would indicate that Christian Reconstruction had been successful? First, that Christians tithe all the tithes commanded in the Bible: the Levitical tithe, the poor tithe, and the rejoicing tithe. All of it. Every last, decentralizing, state de-bloating cent of it. Second, that the tithe is applied as commanded in Scripture (e.g., Neh. 10:38), with only a tithe of the tithe directed to institutional worship, but 90% of the tithe directed to Levitical functions (in particular, education of children).
These two things go in tandem: so long as Christians won't tithe, the short-changed Church will be tempted to gratuitously identify itself with Malachi's storehouse to avoid the implications of Neh. 10:38. But even if Christians did tithe, the Church's misallocation of the tithe would completely undermine that fact, fostering ecclesiastical bloat. If God asserts He is robbed when individuals withhold the full tithe, will He hold churches blameless that misapply 90% of the collected tithe? We'd expect that He will prosper, not the ecclesiocentric churches, but the basiliocentric (kingdom-centered) churches that obey His Word on the matter of the tithe, given that judgment begins at the house of God.
In short, when Christians put their money where their preachy mouth is, and churches trust God and obey the injunction of Neh. 10:38, Christian Reconstruction can acknowledge a major success. The cultural implications of these two indices will be deep, lasting, and will snowball. Until that time, both individuals and churches are illegitimately dipping their hands into God's pockets -- in different ways, assuredly, but no less culpably.
So, what is going on culturally in the mean time? Christians are looking for quick political fixes, and are equating any perceived progress on such fronts as rip-roaring successes. It is instructive, then, to consider the rip-roaring successes achieved by King Josiah, the greatest king of the Old Testament by Scriptural acclamation.
The scriptures that speak of Josiah's reign should bring tears of joy and recognition to those sympathetic to Christian Reconstruction. The fact is, notwithstanding the astonishing strides under Josiah, the reconstruction was short-lived and finally collapsed catastrophically under the reign of Zedekiah. The reconstruction, particularly among the populace at large, had no root in itself. It's as if the cultural flip-side to "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and the Pharisees..." is "unless your reconstruction exceeds that of King Josiah..." But make no mistake: if we, today, were enjoying even a fifth of the progress that Josiah's cultural piledriver had achieved, many Christians would equate that with a miraculous, world-wide success. So we must continually remind ourselves that "these things happened to them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition" (I Cor. 10:11). Only unshakeable things can remain when God moves in history.
John Peter Lange brings home the meaning of counting the cost before building a tower (Luke 14:28-30) in words that apply both to Josiah's reform and our own era. "The beginning signifies nothing unless it leads to the end; a good ending is impossible without careful calculation and continually renewed exertion of all inward powers... So long as the City of God shows so many incomplete towers and heaps of ruins, it cannot possibly make upon its enemies the impression of an impregnable fortress."
All that being said (to get our gauges properly calibrated, so to speak), I think that the influence of Christian Reconstruction can be seen in the realm of Christian education (home schooling and private Christian schooling). The renaissance of postmillennial thinking, which was regarded as an utterly dead eschatology ("with no living voice raised in its defense"), can be attributed largely to Christian Reconstruction's ascent. The fact that "the third use of the Law" is a debate that was freshly invigorated, not by the neo-Puritans (surprisingly), but by the Christian Reconstructionists, is also a significant element of influence (which is still on-going, needless to say).
Institutionally (which is the way humanists predominantly think and organize information), Christian Reconstructionists have had what I suppose could be called "second tier influence." They have proliferated in other ministries, not at the very top rank, but in positions just below that level. Over the years, their leaven has penetrated the proverbial three measures of meal, but we've yet to see "all of it leavened." It is a work in progress, as yet incomplete, and perhaps never to be fully completed. The enemies of Christian activism generally blame the influence of Christian Reconstruction for putting dangerously theocratic aspirations into the heads of people like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. Such oversimplifications aren't terribly accurate, and the "T word" (theocracy) is used as an epithet in complete ignorance of how Christian Reconstruction defines that term. It frightens humanists that ANYONE would appeal to an authority higher than the civil government -- to a King of Kings who challenges the state's authority to legalize abortion, for example. Before Christian Reconstruction arose, it was assumed that if the government persecuted you and imprisoned you, you probably deserved it. Seeing the state as a false messiah, as a Hegelian "god walking on earth" with clay feet, is distinctive to the anti-humanism inherent in Christian Reconstruction.
In any event, while we are grateful for ANY positive influence we may have on other ministries, I stand by my extended 2005 quote above as providing the only realistic canon for gauging the ultimate influence generated by Christian Reconstruction in this generation.
Answers provided by Martin Selbrede, Chalcedon Vice-President
Q: Depending on how one might answer that first question: Is it at all possible to determine how many Reconstructionists there are?
I suppose there's a difference between being a "functional reconstructionist" versus being a "card-carrying reconstructionist." Efforts have been underway for decades to turn the label "Christian Reconstruction" into a demeaning slur, with "theonomist" and "postmillennialist" not too far behind in disapprobation. This campaign, waged both inside the Reformed camp and outside among evangelicals and dispensationalists, has been effective enough to cause reconstructionists to debate whether or not to drop the label, as if it had become the kiss of death to be known as a Christian Reconstructionist. When books with titles like Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? come down in favor of the verdict "Curse!", we see that the polemics of perception have not been handled well by reconstructionists because they naively assumed that their views would be adjudicated on the biblical merits. If they're unfairly smeared and publish a thorough defense, they're labeled as combative Christians who disturb the peace of the Church. "The land cannot bear all their words." (Amos 7:10) So many who are inclined to be sympathetic to the distinctives of Christian Reconstruction tend to distance themselves from the grief of wearing a label that the position's enemies have so effectively tarnished in the public imagination. It takes some moral courage to adopt the label. (It should be noted that "Christian" itself was originally a term of derision).
It takes a different kind of moral courage to be a functional reconstructionist without the formal label. If one were to be expansive in structuring such an enumeration, one would have to conclude that parents who repudiate public education and either home school their children or send them to Christian schools in lieu of government schools, are in effect acting as functional reconstructionists. The more consistently Biblical an individual becomes, the closer to the so-called card-carrying reconstructionist he or she might become. There is, therefore, a spectrum of theological consistency, and people fall in different places along the gradient. Where does one draw the line? Moreover, some people who are functional reconstructionists often reflect internal inconsistency with their own theological positions. We would regard that as a happy inconsistency (their deeds are praiseworthy, but their theology is problematic). Do we treat them as anti-reconstructionists in light of their words, or as functional reconstructionists in light of their actual conduct? This complicates the picture in determining the question "how many?"
Answers provided by Martin Selbrede, Chalcedon Vice-President
Q: Would it be correct to describe Reconstructionism as a theological position that an organisation, for example, to some extent can apply in their work? Or would a more adequate description define Reconstructionism as a movement with certain founders, organizations, and important books?
If Christian Reconstruction IS a theological position that, in the nature of the case, generates an impetus for society-wide application, we might expect there to be (1) important books that set forth that position, (2) that if this theological position is being recovered from a preceding era of neglect, that its recovery by men skilled in advocating it would give the impression those men are founders of whatever juggernaut that recovery might set in motion, and (3) if the theological position is Biblically correct, but the institutional churches become either hostile to it or refuse to embrace it, one might expect para-church institutions to promote that position in the sense Israel's prophets promoted God's perspective outside the confines of Israel's conventional religious institutions.
So, Christian Reconstruction is in fact a theological position, but the nature of that theological position sets the other elements in motion given the context in which we find ourselves. The question therefore presupposes an inaccurate dichotomy, because a theological position with the propositional content of Christian Reconstruction, in conjunction with where we find ourselves in Christendom, creates the dynamic that leads to "founders, organizations, and important books."
As has been documented elsewhere, the heritage of Christian Reconstruction as a theological position is traceable from Augustine through Calvin through Kuyper into the 20th century, each iteration providing a more consistently Biblical formulation than previously achieved. The counter-trend toward studied indifference and irrelevance merely heightened the contrast between Christian Reconstruction and so-called mainstream Christianity with its propensity for subsidizing humanistic/modernistic in-roads into the faith. It is the "conceit" of Christian Reconstruction that it represents Biblical moral imperatives more accurately than other approaches to biblical hermeneutics. If true, Gamaliel's observation would hold that attempts to quash or suppress Christian Reconstruction might find themselves fighting against God Himself.
An "adequate description" would indeed characterize Christian Reconstruction as a theological position, but one so potent in societal/cultural implications that a natural incarnation of the position in "founders, organisations, and important books" was a foregone conclusion. An "incarnation" of a position among its adherents may share all the earmarks of a "movement," and movements are known to run their course and die. Christian Reconstruction has been heralded as dead as well, on the supposition that it is a movement rather than a theological position. Consult my recent article "By Faith He Still Speaks: Rushdoony's Big Idea" to see how he was merely putting some meat on the bones of the Westminster Shorter Catechism's first question, wherein lies the ultimately inexorable strength of Christian Reconstruction. "Whatsoever thing the Lord hath not planted shall be rooted up," we're informed at Matt. 15:13 -- if Christian Reconstruction thrives and expands, it may well be because the Lord has indeed planted it.
If you've not heard about Team Hoyt, then take a few minutes to glean just how blessed you are. These guys teach us all that we are without excuse if we do not exploit the full capacity of our God-given gifts, abilities, and resources.
Here's a brief clip to better understand the remarkable story of this father and son team.
Senator John McCain and the war thirsty veterans at a VFW hall add levity to the notion of bombing yet another Middle Eastern country that had nothing to do with 9/11. After this, McCain went on to promise that he would not allow Iran to destroy Israel. That makes the United States a military proxy for Zionism.
The failed European Union is set to hear arguments for the institution of laws that make denying or "trivialising" the holocaust a criminal offense. Violaters can face up to three years of imprisonment for questioning any aspect of this 20th century event. Presently, Germany and Austrian already have criminal laws against holocaust denial, but the rest of Europe has avoided such legislation with some countries holding out to see other genocides included.
As you many know, R. J. Rushdoony was one of many scholars that questioned the official total of the numbers killed during World War II. He viewed the exaggerated narrative as a violation of the Ninth Commandment that forbid bearing false witness. For this he's been repeatedly ridiculed and mocked. Most critics simply say, "Every reputable scholar endorses the official story of the holocaust." It's rare that you'll ever see any such citations, or that you'll read the arguments presented by able scholars that question the veracity of the actual events. Like questioning our reasons for invading Iraq, you're dismissed with slander and labeled an enemy combatant.
Pursuing the truth should never be a crime. The idea is reserved for the dystopic tales of Orwell and Huxley. Real people don't support such legislation. But Europe is much more developed in modern tyranny, and so many of it's citizens are lame lap dogs that routinely cower to the demands of the state. I'm not familiar with any counter movements of freedom overseas, but I know there are a great many strong Christians that I hope are resisting such a despotic suggestion as criminalizing holocaust denial.
What happens in Europe doesn't stay in Europe. The Left Wing of the American ruling class envies the socialistic prison of modern Europe. You can expect that with a complete Democratic control of the U.S. federal government in 2008 groups like the ADL will seek similar legislation here in the United States.
Their goal has always been the establishment of hate crime laws. It's one of the primary means to controlling political dissent. Much like radical neo-conservatives would like to imprison or hang anyone who criticizes the War in Iraq, Left Wing Judaics seek similar penalties for anything they define as "hate." It's about control; and this from the same group that since 2000 has whined about protecting freedom of speech. Baloney!
Although all kidnapping and rape charges against the three Duke lacrosse players have been dropped, I'm still puzzled by this case. The target now is the Durham D.A., Mike Nifong, who North Carolina Attorney General, Roy Cooper accuses of rushing to judgment. I'm not intending to defend Mr. Nifong, but I am puzzled by the fact that Mr. Cooper is not going to prosecute Crystal Mangum, the alleged victim. Cooper's reasoning is that she simply believes her own fallacious charges and is not culpable. Say what?
Please take a few moments today to pray for those most affected by today's unspeakable events at Virginia Tech. It'll take less than 24 hours for this to turn political. We're Americans, we make everything political. Please pray first.
It's a rare occassion when Bill Maher is stumped by a Conservative. This clearly demonstrates the powerful and unique person in Congressman Ron Paul. The so-called Libertarian, Bill Maher, is shown to be the statist that he is.
"Several prominent scholars who were interviewed in a bitterly contested documentary that suggests that Jesus and his family members were buried in a nondescript ancient Jerusalem burial cave have now revised their conclusions, including the statistician who claimed that the odds were 600:1 in favor of the tomb being the family burial cave of Jesus of Nazareth, a new study on the fallout from the popular documentary shows...." read more.
Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die." John 11:23-25
Easter is supposed to be a celebration of the resurrection of our Lord. Based upon these brief verses mentioned above, resurrection is a recurring theme throughout Scriptures. These particular passages are important because of a simple point that is often missed in discussions surrounding the resurrection.
To a great extent, we are not much further than the Pharisees and Sadducees when it comes to the doctrine of the resurrection. First century Judaism was very much divided over the resurrection, and this division was so pronounced that even the Apostle Paul was able to exploit it to avoid judgment by Ananias, the High Priest:
But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged." And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection -- and no angel or spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. Acts 23:6-8
The Pharisees "confessed" both angels and the resurrection. The Sadducees confessed neither. It was a clear doctrinal division of great proportion. Martha herself was schooled in the doctrine of the Pharisees, and made the great confession before Christ by declaring, "I know that he (Lazarus) will rise again in the resurrection at the last day" (John 11:24).
Confession is most important to the reformed community, and it's not uncommon to see the same sort of dissension when key doctrines are discussed, debated, or challenged. Added to this, we can be much like Martha in that we accept our circumstances with a doctrinal soundness and are quite adept at restating those confessions when the circumstances arise. But....
Our Lord stated something very unique to Martha that day. He repositioned her religious doctrine to be rooted in Himself: "I AM the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25). What was always viewed as the manifestation at the last day suddenly became present in the now. Jesus was the walking eternal -- He was God in history; and stuff happens when God's walking around!
Jesus is the doctrine of the resurrection, and it is that doctrine that is the driving energy behind the spiritual fruit that we should bear:
Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another -- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. Romans 7:4
The implications of the doctrine of the resurrection are immediate because He Himself is that resurrection, and we are "married" or joined together with Him. It is well and good that we make a good confession concerning the eternal state, but we miss the greatness of God's present glory when we, like Martha, overlook the One Who stands before our tombs. He is the resurrection, and He is our life.
"According to a common error, theocracy means the rule of men in the name of God. The Bible clearly contradicts this view. The state in Scripture is a minimal institution, and so too is the church as an institution. The rule of God's law is essentially through the lives of men as they apply their faith, and as they create tithe agencies to govern various areas and needs. Where faith wanes, the theocracy wanes. The Book of Judges gives us no change in polity from beginning to end, but it gives us an alternation from peace and prosperity to oppression and tyranny, and the key is faith. The essential government comes from the self-government of the Christian man. The U.S. was best governed when it was least governed, not because less control from the state was the essential ingredient but because Christian self-government was central in the eras of good government. Without strong, self-governing Christians taking back self-government under Christ in health, welfare, education, and more, we cannot return by politics to less statism." ~ R. J. Rushdoony
The resistance to Christian dominionism is a relatively weak one. This is due mainly to the fact that secularists hold no meaningful worldview, and therefore cannot inspire the kind of activism found in the burning hearts of devout Christians. Modern Christianity is driven by a surge which began over 2,000 years ago, and obstructing that torrent will require much more than the feeble blogging of the "theocracy watchers." It also will not be stopped by a Democratic victory in 2008. This is what all theocratic critics must bear in mind: Christianity is a faith, not a political constituency. It only has implications for politics.
Rushdoony rightly said, "Where faith wanes, the theocracy wanes." Therefore, the only way to defeat dominionism is for faith to wane. No means of legislation can remove the Christian voice from the political arena, or any other sphere of life. Only a decrease in the faith of men and women will lead to the marginalization of the Christian political voice. But again, politics is but one sphere where faith is represented. Christianity has implications for every area of life, and the need now is for more organizations and churches with a levitical calling to equip God's people for self-government and godly reconstruction.
Rushdoony concluded above, "Without strong, self-governing Christians taking back self-government under Christ in health, welfare, education, and more, we cannot return by politics to less statism." The Chalcedon Foundation is helping to lead the way in educating Christians around the world in godly reconstruction. I encourage you to support that mission with prayer, activism, and financial support. It is now that the Christian voice must be heard even more as hundreds of millions of Bible-believers invade every sphere of life with the Word of God. Help us to fulfill that vision if God so graciously leads.
This weekend the blogosphere will experience moderate traffic in the marginalized pockets of "theocratic" resistance, viz., secular blog sites. This is referred to as a "blogswarm," and it means a handful of Christophobic bloggers will simultaneously write critical posts of the Religious Right--whom they refer to as "theocrats."
In case you thought this one blogger is the only fearful grape in the patch, the ridiculous Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Chris Hedges, recently published his book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America in which he writes:
When Pat Robertson was asked by Jerry Falwell if God had allowed the attacks on September 11, both the question and its answer stoked fear of divine wrath and apocalyptic judgment... Should another castastrophic attack occur, what will prevent these preachers from calling for the punishment, detention and quarantining of gays and lesbians--as well as abortionists, Muslims and other nonbelievers--to safeguard the nation? What will stanch the hate crimes and physical attacks against those deemed immoral by fearful and angry Christians, those condemned by these preachers as responsible for the nation's abandonment of God? [1]
Mr. Hedges is insanely paranoid. So much so, that I recommend some form of sedative or therapy. He could be a danger to himself, or others. You see, Mr. Hedges holds a similar philosophy to that of the neoconservatives. It's the doctrine or preemption, i.e. get them before they get you! In fact, he begins the first chapter of his book with a favorable quote from Karl Popper:
"[W]e should claim the right to suppress them (the intolerant theocrats) if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists and pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." [2]
What is Mr. Hedges doing? He's threatening me and my family. Yours too, if you believe that homosexuality is a sin. You are intolerant and equal to a murderer or kidnapper. Therefore, the "secular fascists of tolerance" must put aside their tolerance only to arrest those whom THEY deem as intolerant. This man is insane (he's in state of mind that prevents normal perception, Oxford Dictionary). There's no other word for it.
So, I can't say that I'll participate in the Theocracy Blogswarm, but as providence would have it, I'm about to go to press with the next issue of Faith for All of Life. And guess what the title is? THEOCRACY NOW!
I love the smell of irony in the morning!
1. Chris Hedges, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, p. 106. 2. Ibid., p. 1.
For all of the public relations "muscle" held by the U.S. and Britain, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, keeps winning each round. This reminds me of a Judo principle where you begin to push against your opponent causing them -- in pride -- to start pushing back even harder. When they do, you simply fall backwards and throw them over your back to the ground. There aggressive forward motion will cause them to tumble.
This has been the consistent tactic of the Iranians; and it's working. The hubris of the West is the ideal snare for Iran to use against Western propaganda. The latest involves the release of the 15 British sailors being held in Iran since last month. Today, President Ahmadinejad released the 15 sailors in honor of the prophet's birthday. He then decorated the arresting Iranian sailors with medals of honor.
Adding insult to injury, he offered a rebuke to British officials for deploying the female Seaman, Faye Turney, who is presently pregnant. Ouch!
Ahmadinejad smiles. He is almost never seen with a tie. He writes letters to President Bush, and makes trip to the U.S. to speak with the U.N. and the CFR. The CIA has no footage of him torturing political opponents. There are no mass graves. No buried WMDs. So, how do you nail this guy? Well, you hope he acts like an idiot after arresting 15 British sailors. He doesn't. He gives them back just in time for Easter and then corrects you for sending pregnant women into war.
He's a PR nightmare. If you recall, prior to the invasion of Iraq the U.S. population was subjected to old footage of Saddam throwing prisoners off of buildings, cutting off their hands, and beating them with rods. We heard about the torture rooms as well as the abuse of his two sons. We were supposed to loathe Saddam--to wish his demise.
This is more difficult with Ahmadinejad. Sure, you can get him on holocaust denial, but is that reason enough to invade his country and sacrifice more American lives? But what about his statement that Israel should be wiped off the map? Well, that's not exactly what he said. He was not saying Iran was going to attack Israel and erase it from existence. He basically gave Israel an old-fashioned curse! He believed that the Arab resistance to Israel's occupation of Palestine would lead to her eventual demise.
It's certainly not a smart thing to say, but is it justification for invasion? We are coming up to the six-year marker since 9/11, and it's getting more difficult to exploit that event for greater war. It would help if Ahmadinejad acted more like Saddam. His tie-less smiling is killing the Manhattan PR firms.
This is an episode of the "30 Days" television series which takes people from differing backgrounds and ideologies and places them together for 30 days in order see what impact they make on each other. In this episode a suburban atheist soccer mom is sent to Frisco, Texas to live with a devout family of suburban evangelicals whose lives are wrapped up in the modern megachurch and all that lifestyle entails.
This is a particularly disturbing video in both its development and conclusion. The absolute embarrassment of today's evangelical in presenting the Biblical faith demonstrates the failure of evangelical apologetics, antinomianism, and arminian theology. Add to that the modern super-church and you've got a shabby defense of the faith.
The atheist woman was carefully chosen by the producers. She's intended to draw your sympathy with her tales of persecution by Christians. You're left with the impression that atheists are just like Christians only without the God. Believe you me, a good many atheists are quite radical themselves and hardly portray the pathetic personality of this selected woman. I choose the word "pathetic" carefully. She's intended to "arouse pity through vulnerableness or sadness."
The conclusion is intended to push tolerance and acceptance--whatever that means in this case. Both the atheist and the Christians "learned" from one another, and all go on their happy way. The question of God's existence is not resolved. Mostly because the Christians make such a poor showing. This frail little atheist "rocks" their little worlds with her tough questions.
Note to the producers: Next time you wanna send out an atheist, I've got several homes you can send them to!
"I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground,'' said Obama. "I do think a majority of the Senate has now expressed the belief that we need to change course in Iraq.
"Obviously we're constrained by the fact that a commander in chief who also has veto power has the option of ignoring that position,'' Obama said.
I hope the Left is listening. Barak Obama is "constrained" to funding the war in Iraq by the fact that the president will veto any suggested course change by Congress, and that he does not want the U.S. to "play chicken with our troops on the ground." This is political posturing par excellence. If Obama intends to garner the swing vote, he cannot risk appearing as Kucinich or Nader in being "really" opposed to the war. I guess being both "black" and "white" helps him to be both a "dove" and a "hawk."
Gary North chimes in on "Why Democrats Have Not Cut Off the War's Funding."
