A Conservative Christian’s Guidebook for

Living in Secular Times

(Now With Added Humor!)

By Michael R Shannon

“Funny and controversial, Michael Shannon’s “A Conservative Christian Guidebook” is worth the read for believers and those who aren’t!”

NEWSMAX

“This book has something for everyone, including profound insights that are often profoundly funny. Get your copy today, you won’t be sorry.”

Michael Reagan

President of The Reagan Legacy Foundation

Chairman of the League of American Voters

“Exposés from the scintillating pen of celebrated conservative columnist Michael Shannon have long kept secularists on the run. His harpooning them with humor appeals to Christian Conservatives because it proves the last laugh belongs to the good side in the ongoing battle of Good and Evil.”

Judi McLeod

Canada Free Press Editor

canadafreepress.com

“Michael R Shannon is an ICONIC writer who has the ability to capture a readers attention through a great sense of humor and rational thoughts - just a plain common sense guy.”

Hank Richards

Editor PROnline News

pronlinenews.com

Copyright © 2013 Michael R Shannon

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the address below.

mandate.mmpr@gmail.com

To my wife, Janet whose patience, understanding, love and haranguing made all this possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

SECULAR POLITICS & THE BELIEVER

Jesus the Liberal Democrat

Occupying the Lunatic Fringe

Richmond Fed: Letting Its Glee Flag Fly

What Is it About ‘Stereotype’ that the Tea Party Doesn’t Understand?

Sudden Jihad Syndrome Outbreak in Cairo & Libya

Finally a Democrat on the Right Side of Taxes

Time for a Rest Stop on the Road to Mideast Peace

CHRISTIAN DRAFTEES IN THE CULTURE WAR

Chick–fil–A: Fast food, Faster Hate

Conservative Pacifists in the Culture War

Conservative Pacifists in the Culture War Pt. II

Evangelicals Flying Blind

Why Doesn’t George Zimmerman Mind His Own Business?

Too Many Battles, Not Enough Bible

Parody

Kermit’s Lament

Charlie Brown for Governor

Evangelicals Swing Both Ways on Social Issues

The First Church of Druidical Science

Death Is Cheapened in VA

Two Grooms Does Not a Marriage Make

Blindsided

A Ten Commandments Scorecard

CHRISTIANS AS STRANGE LIFE FORM

Jesus, Another Innocent Man Wrongly Convicted

Imagine. No Religion, Too

Cathedral of Can’t We All Get Along

Searching for the ‘Moderate’ Christian

LIFE IS A BETTER CHOICE

A Newton for Our Time

You Can’t Be a Little Bit ‘Private’

‘Choose Electrolux’ Plate Available Soon

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Preface

I officially became a Christian while a teenager in Midland, TX when I was baptized in the First Christian Church, a Disciples of Christ denomination. Being a typical teenager, I don’t remember the date or the pastor’s name. I vaguely remember walking forward during the altar call, which was intimidating, since fat teenagers don’t usually make a practice of calling attention to themselves.

The rest of the world handles that task for free.

That was pretty much the pinnacle of my religious life until I reached my 40’s. My only other high point was the one–year perfect Sunday school attendance pin I earned in elementary school. Otherwise, I went to Sunday school, attended Chi Rho (the youth group) on Sunday evening and even went to a church camp or two.

When I went away to college I promptly stopped attending church. Part of this was because we moved just prior to my junior year in high school — a social disaster for a teenager just emerging from his shell — and the family never really established a relationship with a church in Dallas.

I wasn’t hostile to church just indifferent, unless there was a special opportunity. For example: I went to the First Baptist Church of Park Cities because it had a large young adult ministry and I wanted to meet girls when I was home from college. (The Baylor Nursing School in Dallas was affiliated with the church at that time and I felt their arrival for the summer session was an occasion not to be missed.)

Even that tenuous connection was broken when I finished college and went out on my own. For the next 20 years I lived as a pagan, but not the burning and pillaging kind. I considered myself “good” as a lot of seculars and pagans do, but I wasn’t exactly burdened by dogma and I could sleep in on Sunday.

God, however, had other plans.

He worked in my life by sending me everything I did not want. In spite of my objections and reluctance, He sent me a wife and a family. Even worse my wife was a refurbished model and already had a daughter. Then we had a son and I was a full–fledged father, even though I never wanted children because I feared I would turn out to be a screamer like my parent.

And He started working on my heart.

It took a while, but I started attending church again — Baptist this time, the Disciples of Christ had become too modern and sophisticated for me — and gradually, with His patient help, my life began changing.

Once I became active in my spiritual life I proved to be a fast learner. It only took me ten years to become a practicing Pharisee ready to advise others on how to get right with God at the drop of a hat.

Hence the book you are reading now. Or will soon start reading. I remain, flawed, judgmental and opinionated. But also funny and I’m still trying.

This book is the result of one of my more obvious blessings, my wife. Before I met her, the best job I ever had was when I was a columnist and editorial page writer for The Dallas Morning News. They actually paid me to read the newspaper, something I had been doing for free up until that point.

She knew I missed the column so a few years ago Janet pestered the local newspaper editor until he agreed to give me a try. This book is one of the results.

Thanks for reading.

Secular Politics & the Believer

Believers are commanded to be in the world but not of the world. Secular political types like that just fine, because they think a hands off philosophy on the part of believers will allow them to hijack the Gospel message and use the Good News for their own worldly ends.

We can’t allow that to happen.

Believers should know their Bible and know how to apply that knowledge to their life and that includes their political life. The following are my attempts to thwart a series of attempted hijackings of the Word.

Jesus the Liberal Democrat

It’s tough enough trying to be a Christian in this secular world without taking misleading doctrinal advice from non–believers who deny the divinity of Christ.

But some Christians obviously can’t resist because Hindus, Buddhists, Zen masters, Wiccans, pagans, fire worshipers, polytheists, agnostics, atheists and Unitarians continue their work of trying to get us to follow the “real” teaching of Jesus.

The latest advice comes from the religion columnist for the Washington Post: Lisa Miller. Lisa is a conflicted Jew. The kind who goes to a Reform synagogue and says prayers for Israel, but her bizarre philosophy of moral equivalence leads Miller to believe Israelis are mean to Arabs. So she feels like it’s time to redefine the word “Israel,” at least for prayer purposes.

Fresh from altering the intent Jewish prayer, Miller turns to occupy Wall Street with helpful advice on how Christians should respond to this civic tantrum.

Lisa knows just how Jesus would have responded, had He spent a few days in Zuccotti Park: “Thus, (H)e might have sympathy for the various causes espoused by the campers (end hydrofracking, tax the rich, support unions, cap executive pay.)”

Poor Jesus, He never gets a break. Plagued by Pharisees during his own time and thrown among parasites today.

Miller’s non–divine Jesus is an advocate of what John Eldredge calls “wispy wisdom.” Christ becomes a non–judgmental, vegan philosopher whose market beliefs are Karl Marx without the aggressive beard and class struggle.

Naturally Miller turns to Bart Ehrman for expert agreement. Ehrman’s a favorite of secular, non–believing reporters because he’s a former evangelical Christian who lost his faith over typos in the New Testament. Today Ehrman is an agnostic professor of religion and the go–to guy for reporters looking to enlist Jesus in the Socialist International.

Still, even cursory readers of the New Testament know Jesus did not spend a lot of time discussing investment strategy, although Matthew 25: 14–30 comes close.

Theologically it’s complicated, but the parable concerns a rich man going on vacation. He gives three of his servants ten, five and one talent of silver and then heads for the beach. When he returns, the master calls the servants to account. The ten–talent and the five–talent men invested and doubled their money. But the one–talent servant buried his for fear of losing it.

The master praised those who doubled their money, but fired the one–talent servant, which sounds to me like a rousing endorsement of capital gains.

If you really read the Bible, it’s hard to co–opt the Savior into your earthly political plans without simply inventing theology.

He had plenty of time to confront civil authority, yet Christ focused on religious authority. He didn’t discuss the politics with the Centurion or tax rates with Matthew. In fact the only system of government approved by God was that of the judges, and the Jews disliked that so much they demanded a king. Democracy and the consent of the governed are not mentioned in the New Testament because it’s not a political science or economics text. The Word is directed at individuals and not banks, corporations, the GOP, Congress or Parliament.

But Miller does real damage when she repeats the big lie of our modern, dissolute age. “The Jesus of history would love them all. What Jesus really said, and what he meant, are the subjects of culture’s greatest controversies, but one thing is sure. Jesus gave preferential treatment to society’s outcasts.”

This half–truth is used to justify homosexuality, shacking up, sex before marriage, out–of–wedlock births and much of the rest of the degeneracy of our age. But it is a lie.

Jesus’ ministry was in sharp contrast to that of the Pharisees who weren’t interested in people unless they were already members of the club. Jesus did do outreach. His ministry was directed at sinners and He welcomed them. For adulterers, thieves, terrorists, prostitutes, tax collectors, men with anger issues it was come one, come all.

But to remain in His presence you had to be willing to change EVERYTHING.

He changed the names of His disciples, ordered them to abandon their families, and rebuked them for lack of faith. The prostitute and the fornicator had to lead a moral lives and the thief stopped stealing, to mention but a few.

Yes He reached out without regard to your past or your station in life, but if you were to follow Him, it was under His rules and Christ did not grade on the curve.

That’s the truth Miller and other liberal Bible hijackers conveniently overlook.

Occupying the Lunatic Fringe

Outraged Internet theologians recently took umbrage at my refusal to join the effort to transform Jesus into a big government, liberal Democrat that supports the Occupy squatters.

Most echoed secular interpreters of Christ who claim, “Jesus shares many of the values of those in the Occupy movement.”

I contend Jesus had plenty of time to confront civil authority, yet Christ focused on religious authority. He didn’t discuss politics with the centurion or tax rates with Matthew. In fact the only system of government approved by God was that of the judges, and the Jews disliked that arrangement so much they demanded a king.

Democracy and social justice are not mentioned in the New Testament because it’s not a political science or economics text. The Word is directed at individuals and not Wall Street, corporations, the GOP, Congress or the Koch brothers.

Solutions will come, if ever, from individuals acting on their own and not collectivists like Nancy Pelosi telling us what to do. But I try to keep an open mind. Maybe I haven’t spent enough time with Occupy to form an accurate opinion.

Fortunately, my daughter saved me a trip and reported back on her encounter with those New Testament individuals working to establish the Kingdom here on earth. Last Saturday night Occupy was marching through Downtown DC to block Obama’s appearance at that den of inequity, the Alfalfa Club Dinner. My daughter’s car was stopped at an intersection blocked by Occupy marchers and in no time at all these “Christ–like” crusaders for Justice saw she was a young woman alone.

They surrounded her vehicle and began the spreading their word. Some dropped their pants to expose my daughter to the persuasive message contained in their genitals. Others sat on the hood and pounded their fists. All this took place accompanied by an inspiring soundtrack of curses, vulgarities and sexual harassment.

She wasn’t mistaken for a member of the 1 percent, gloating over the misfortunes of the poor. She drives a rice burner approaching 135,000 miles that’s decorated with dents, dings and rust spots courtesy of dad’s attempt to repair a broken window.

She was singled out because Occupy harbors an increasing collection of gutless thugs who get off on frightening women and the weak.

There were approximately five offenses worthy of arrest: genital exposure, attempted destruction of property, blocking an intersection, disorderly conduct, assault and wearing a mask to conceal identity (particularly ironic since these laws were passed by “progressives” to fight the Klan). Yet the DC cop standing and idly watching did exactly nothing and the media seldom report this type of outrage.

I’m wracking my brain here, but I can’t find equivalent behavior on the part of the Apostles. Josephus writes of a Roman soldier starting a riot when he mooned Jews from his perch in Antonia Fortress overlooking Jerusalem, but that’s hardly part of the Gospel.

What’s amazing is how Democrats and fellow–travelers in the media demonize the TEA party and romanticize Occupy leeches. When the ugly undercurrent of the real Occupy movement finally makes headlines, the excuse is always these lawbreakers are “fringe elements” and not part of the main movement.

Really? Then why have there been almost 4,000 Occupy arrests? That’s an active fringe. You don’t find that when searching for arrests at TEA party events.

But even the TEA party has a fringe, so lets compare.

TEA party fringe believes the Bilderberg Group is a real threat. Occupy fringe defecates on police cars.

TEA party fringe believes the moon landing was faked. Occupy fringe discourages a rape victim from contacting police.

TEA party fringe believes there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll. Occupy fringe smashes its way into Oakland City Hall, vandalizes children’s artwork and burns the American flag.

TEA party fringe believes the US should return to the gold standard. Occupy fringe urinates on food vendors in NYC when they stop giving free food to Occupy parasites.

Law enforcement wizards in DC may finally be noticing a trend. U.S. Park Police commanders have decided, after four months of hand wringing, that it might be time to enforce the law against camping in McPherson Square.

Warnings have been issued against camping and its related activity, sleeping. According to spokesman Sgt. David Schlosser officers have been ordered to investigate tents for clues that include “sleeping bags, teddy bears and kitchen equipment.”

After reading that it’s difficult to decide which group is more pathetic. The unfortunate Park Police officers forced to search for binkies and blankets before making an arrest; or the Occupy cheering section that continues to insist this confederacy of creeps is on board with the teaching of Jesus.

Richmond Fed: Letting Its Glee Flag Fly

One of the positive benefits of smaller government is the consequent reduction in taxpayer–funded prevarication. The private sector will produce plenty of liars without government help.

Case in point is Jeffrey M. Lacker, Richmond Virginia Federal Reserve Bank president. Del. Bob Marshall (R–Prince William, VA) requested Lacker remove the homosexual lobby’s rainbow flag currently flying in front of the bank. The flag celebrates “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Deviancies to Be Named Later Month.”

Marshall pointed out that “a flagpole in front of a federal building is not a commercial or political message board.” And that Congress created the Fed to “contribute to the strength and vitality of the U.S. economy.”

Public support of sexual activity is obviously far outside the bank’s charter, unless one believes combating the phrase “queer as a three–dollar bill” will provide a boost to the economy.

In response, Lacker claimed flying the flag supports its employees and is not a political or social statement. Which is, of course, a lie.

There are a number of ways a company can discretely support alternate–lifestyle employees without putting a thumb in Middle America’s eye. For example, pin a poster up in the break room, right next to the hand sanitizer dispenser where everyone will see it. Circulate a memo. Organize an after work party at Richmond’s ‘Club Hush.’ Attach a rainbow balloon to the sneeze guard that protects the arugula. Sponsor an outing to an AIDs hospice or even award a free subscription to the New York Times.

What you don’t do is run a patently political banner up the flagpole to see who salutes. By way of contrast, does the Richmond Fed fly a manger flag at Christmas?

Good grief! What am I thinking? What I meant was: Does the Fed fly a snowman flag during the winter holidays?

The Federal Reserve likes to consider itself a quasi–governmental agency. This means it has all the advantages of a government–run organization — lack of accountability, immunity from market forces, access to taxpayer dollars and control over the citizenry — without any of the disadvantages, like elections.

The fact is, just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Fed can claim ‘quasi” all it likes, but when something goes wrong taxpayers will own the problem lock, stock and “pride” flag.

Which is why taxpayers, and their representatives, should have some say about what gets run up the flagpole.

Still, we can be glad (not GLADD) that the Fed is not as ambitious as the USDA, which evidently is ready to open re–education camps for conservative Christians and supporters of traditional morals.

The US Department of Agriculture (Motto: Fighting Famine Since 1862) evidently believes that since most of us are now obese and food no longer appears to be a problem, the USDA should concentrate on expanding its “intense brand” of homosexual indoctrination into the rest of the federal government.

According to the Washington Times, while the Fed is content with a bit of flag flapping, USDA seeks lavender domination by using the Office of Personnel Management to impose what is essentially brainwashing and self–criticism classes (who said Mao was unfashionable?) on every other government agency, quasi or otherwise.

I can certainly see how the sexual practice of farm animals comes under the purview of USDA, but adding humans appears to be mission creep.

USDA homosexual sensitivity training is adamantly opposed to traditional marriage and goes so far as to imply that people who support male–female marriage are bigots guilty of “heterosexism.”

This puts the “Oh!” back in Orwellian.

It redefines the approval of 4,000 or so years of normal behavior as the equivalent of hate. I would venture to say a class of individuals pathologically obsessed with broadcasting their sexual practices and demanding affirmation from people who do not approve of their choices could be in need of some from of intervention, but that’s just me.

You could also ask why taxpayer dollars are being spent on an indoctrination program that the vast majority of taxpayers do not support? But then you would have to justify the IRS, too.

You could even ask why Republican presidential candidates are always urged by the media and elites to “avoid divisive social issues” while government agencies are applauded for jumping into the fray in the most objectionable way possible?

Make no mistake, the goal here is not “tolerance.” The alternate activist’s ultimate aim appears to be controlling our thoughts, speech and opinions with regard to their place in society with no room for deviation — a goal I haven’t been able to achieve in my own household.

No wonder columnist Mike Adams refers to them as the “Gaystapo.”

What Is It About ‘Stereotype’ that the Tea Party Doesn’t Understand?

Too bad TEA party types are such ingrates. Now that the mainstream media (MSM) is finally starting to cover the IRS political scandal, you'd think the TEA party would go out of its way to reward the media for emerging from its Obama–induced coma.

Consider what would have happened if there had been four deaths in connection with the IRS attacks, as happened in Benghazi. Result: It happened a long time ago and what difference does it make?

Repaying the MSM would not have been difficult. For example, at the recent TEA Party–dominated Republican convention in Virginia, conservatives could've done something simple like book a minstrel show for entertainment, sing 'Dixie' before the National Anthem or burn a cross for illumination. Stereotypes would have been confirmed and MSM self–satisfaction could continue unchallenged.

But no, out of seven candidates running for Lt. Governor the overwhelmingly white, middle–aged TEA Party Republicans had to go and pick the only black guy in the bunch! Even worse. E. W. Jackson had raised the least money of any of the candidates and instead had to base his hope for victory on an impassioned speech before the assembled delegates.

A black guy that can make a speech and impress Republicans? Who’d a thunk it?

In fact the Washington Post complained, “it’s almost inconceivable that (Jackson) could have won an open party primary.” Which is true, since a primary would have been dominated by something WaPost leftists claim to hate even more than conservative blacks and that’s money in politics.

Bottom line? Media leftists prefer capitalist money influencing elections to blacks escaping the Democrat plantation. (But on the plus side, Rev. Jackson is one candidate you can legitimately ask about the content of his prayers.)

Instead Jackson, who in addition to being a minister is a graduate of Harvard Law School and a Marine veteran, won through personal contact and the force of his personality. And what a personality it is! No mottled shades of gray here.

Media leftists consider conservative minority politicians to be deeply embarrassing and something a decent person would want to keep private and within the family; like a son who wanted to marry a man. Besides being guilty of thought crimes, a black Republican that opposes the Democrat platform of amnesty, abortion and alternative lifestyle is called an Uncle Tom.

This is another example of leftist revisionism. Back when Democrats were leaning on the Supreme Court for legitimacy and dominated politics and culture while being on the wrong side of slavery; a black who supported ‘massa and claimed to be happy with his lot, was called an Uncle Tom for kneeling before power. Frederick Douglass was a hero for fighting against injustice and going against prevailing legal and cultural norms. (Dang, wasn’t Douglass a Republican, too?)

Today Democrats again lean on the Supreme Court for legitimacy, dominate politics along with culture and are on the wrong side of abortion. The legal system is cluttered with “hate crime” legislation, homosexuals qualify for special rights, Christians are to be kept in the closet and any attempt to regulate abortion is called a “war on women.” Yet a black that supports conservatives is instantly branded an Uncle Tom, when the reverse is actually true. This means Utah’s Mia Love is Fredericka Douglass on a courageous crusade for truth and Susan Rice is Aunt Jemima.

And make no mistake the WaPost is in a snit regarding Jackson. Columnist Robert McCartney did everything but call him “macca” in a column this week. McCartney says that Jackson on the ticket will reflect poorly on gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli. This is because fiery black ministers only cause problems when they are linked for a few months to a white candidate, while sitting in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years is just a coincidence for Barack Obama.

McCartney quotes Jackson as saying gays have “perverted” minds and are “very sick people psychologically and mentally and emotionally.” And he adds Jackson has described President Obama as “an evil presence” and liberal abortion policy as “infanticide.”

So I think VA Republicans are just going to have to resign themselves to losing Megan McCain’s vote this year.

Another red flag for McCartney came when Jackson said Planned Parenthood has been more lethal to blacks than the Ku Klux Klan. I will admit the only politician with the moral stature necessary to make modern day slavery comparisons is Joe Biden. But that being said, Jackson does have the facts on his side — as if that makes any difference to the left.

The number of blacks killed by lynching in the US between 1864 and 1968 was 4,946. You can add to that beatings and intimidation by both the Klan and freelance bigots who didn’t want to be bogged down with a formal commitment to an organization.

Compare that with 18,778,000 black babies killed by an abortionist between only 1973 and 2013. Nathan Bedford Forest doesn’t begin to compare with your local Planned Parenthood facility manager when it comes to eliminating young blacks.

The WaPost was also appalled at VA Republicans for having a convention in the first place. In their view being committed enough to give up your Saturday and attend a largely boring convention disqualifies one for participation in the decision–making process.

The mandarins at the Post complain that the 8,000 delegates attending the Richmond convention were less than one percent of the people who claim to be Republicans in Virginia. Yet I don’t recall them complaining when only 5,556 delegates to the Democrat National Convention in 2012 approved a far left platform way out of the mainstream of American thought. (I hope the WaPost has not reverted to the practice of only counting 3/5ths of a Republican for apportionment purposes as Democrats did during slavery.)

Virginia conservatives have provided voters with a clear choice in November: A Republican ticket composed of social and government conservatives versus whatever opportunists the Democrats have handy.

The media will just have to cope with the fact that Jackson’s nomination has ruined what was to be the favorite headline this fall: VA Republicans – Whiter Than White; Righter Than Right.

Sudden Jihad Syndrome Outbreak in Cairo & Libya

The term for Christians and other non–Moslems living in Islamic countries is “dhimmi.” Think of it as Jim Crow with a turban. Think of it as Jim Crow right now.

According to Mitchell Bard, dhimmis in Islamic lands “on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Moslems or to touch a Moslem woman."

Dhimmis were forbidden to hold public office, serve in the armed forces or own weapons. Non–Moslems cannot build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, construct houses taller than those of Moslems or drink wine in public, which helps to explain Donald Trump’s absence.

A dhimmi’s testimony in court was worthless, which meant attacking dhimmis was penalty–free for Moslems, just like today.

But one doesn’t have to live in the Middle East to be a dhimmi. You could be the President of the United States and impose dhimmitude on an entire nation.

Obama orders our soldiers to wear white gloves when touching the Koran (no word on whether the troops are required to suit up before touching the Bible or Bagvad Gita) and avoid drinking or eating in front of Moslems during their Ramadan fast.

His administration can insist there is no nexus between Islam and terrorism; and collaborate with Muslim Brotherhood front groups here at home.

And the President can treat the murder of our Libyan ambassador and an attack on our embassy in Egypt as simply a random act in response to provocation from US citizens.

In full dhimmi mode, the embassy in Cairo and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton scrambled to burn the Constitution in a futile effort to placate readers of the Koran. “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims…” the statement read. “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

The death of the ambassador presented a problem for the State Department since he was important, and not a grunt in Afghanistan. They couldn’t blame his death on asking to see photos of a Moslem’s wife and kids, like the military does in “green on blue” attacks in Kabul.

So Hillary “strongly condemned the attack” and asked the same Libyans who allowed the murder to provide additional protection for the rubble.

An attack on an embassy or the murder of an ambassador is not a law enforcement problem. It’s an act of war. The proper response is not a hand–wringing statement and a eulogy for Ambassador Chris Stevens.

That would be like FDR — Obama’s hero — issuing a statement after Pearl Harbor that saluted the dead, praised them for their public service and failed to mention the attack by Japan.

The proper response to an act of war is a demand the perpetrators be handed over immediately.

And until then, the US 6th fleet should blockade Libyan ports and institute a no–fly zone over every airport. In the case of Egypt, the administration should end discussions on forgiving its $1 billion debt and Egypt should not get a penny of the $1.5 billion in aid until rioters who violated US sovereignty are turned over.

(On second thought, keep the rioters. Since they crossed an international border while invading our embassy, this administration might feel relieved to finally encounter illegals that don’t speak Spanish. There’s a real possibility Janet Incompetano would offer rioters a green card and a free college education.)

Unfortunately, none of this will happen. This weak, feckless, incompetent excuse for a president puts a higher priority on making sure the Pentagon allows homosexuals in military uniform to march in “gay pride” parades than he does in protecting Americans and embassies overseas on the anniversary of 9/11.

Instead the Cairo embassy apologetically announced there would be no visa services on Wednesday due to clean up from a previously unplanned al Qaeda festival.

Any psychologist will tell you successful behavior is learned behavior and since 1979 Moslems have learned attacking a US embassy is penalty–free and gives the attackers plenty of cachet with the hijab hotties.

One of the Islamists at the embassy storming explained, “This is a very simple reaction to harming our prophet.” So why can’t the United States have a very simple reaction to harming our embassy and our citizens?

A good friend of mine observed that if Obama had ordered Marines in Cairo to fire when the rioters crossed the wall, he would have won the election yesterday. Fortunately for Mitt Romney, that dhimmi knows his place.

Finally a Democrat on the Right Side of Taxes

Tim Kaine — known here as Gov. Flowmax after closing Virginia’s interstate rest stops — occasionally comes down on the right side of an issue. During the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce debate between Senate candidates Kaine and former Sen. George Allen, Kaine observed that he would be “open” to the idea of everyone paying some level of federal income tax.

Subsequent media and online coverage was dominated by the charge that Kaine wants to tax everyone. Republican websites instantly pounced on the tax statement in an effort to put Kaine on the defensive. This is typical of today’s politics where candidates and consultants go for short–term political advantage at the cost of long term damage to the country.

Readers of last week’s column know I think it’s a good idea for every adult to pay federal tax. Otherwise some enjoy Taxation Without Participation where those who don’t pay federal taxes are happy to vote for politicians who will increase the taxes of those who do.

There is no government free lunch, although it may seem like it as long as the Chinese allow Uncle Sam to run a tab. If everyone pays, then everyone is aware of the cost of government when taxes increase. Normally Democrats oppose this.

The whole idea of some individuals being exempt from responsibility is another of the modern “progressive” ideas that have done so much to damage the nation. “Forward” into oblivion one might say.

Contrast “progressive” tax policy with Biblical tithe policy. God — who one would think knows something about the human heart and fairness — did not exempt anyone from paying their obligation. Luke 21:1 – 4 relates the incident of the widow’s mite: And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.”

The widow’s poverty did not exempt her, in fact it served to glorify her. Yet modern man, who evidently has a more finely attuned sense of justice than God, doesn’t think everyone should contribute to the nation’s upkeep. What’s more, the widow paid the same percentage tithe as those in “their abundance.” Proving God doesn’t believe in “progressive” tax rates either, but that’s a topic for another column.

Kaine was also asked if he supports eliminating charitable and mortgage interest deductions. Kaine answered that he supports broadening the base and rather than enduring a political battle over each deduction, he supports setting an aggregate total.

What this innocuous phrase means is Kaine wants the federal government to decide what’s a reasonable amount for you to give to charity. I’m sure if Kaine has his way the federally–approved donation deduction will be somewhere between the widow’s mite that Joe Biden delivers by motorcade each December 25th and the 30 percent Mitt Romney has donated to charity in 2011.

If instituted, the fed’s final decision on what’s allowed will be closer to the 3 to 5 percent charitable average for the US. For Christians who give a 10 percent tithe, this means they will be paying taxes on at least half of the money they donate. Proving Leviathan tolerates the worship of God as long as you save some Mammon for it.

This is a curious policy for a Catholic like Kaine to support, but it’s not the only issue where the former governor has a secular take on his faith. When the subject came up Kaine didn’t come right out and say he supported “abortion.” After all, this wasn’t the Democrat National Convention where abortion is part of the party platform.

Kaine’s genuflection came when he declared support for a woman’s right to exercise “constitutional choices.” But certainly not the “constitutional choice” that allows a woman to carry a concealed weapon. Kaine’s bloodless euphemism is just his feeble attempt to conceal the ugly truth of abortion.

Kaine will tell you that as a Catholic he is personally opposed to abortion, but is not willing to impose his beliefs on others. This is a classic dodge that weaselly Southern Democrats have been using for over 200 years.

Before the Civil War Democrats claimed to be personally opposed to slavery, but unwilling to impose their beliefs on the planter aristocracy.

The outcome in the one case was involuntary servitude, in the other involuntary death. I fail to see any improvement in Democrat philosophy over the years.

It’s a real shame that Tim Kaine is not willing to extend his “open” to everyone paying taxes to being “open” to everyone being born.

Time for a Rest Stop on the Road to Mideast Peace

Prince William County is not exactly a hotbed of Jewish culture. Sure you can find the odd kosher condiment at the grocery store, but good luck finding an authentic kosher deli.

Since one of my favorites is Dixie Bones, the lack of a kosher option did not present much of a problem for everyday dining choices — until I had an Orthodox Israeli guest.

Itamar Marcus, head of Palestinian Media Watch, visited a couple of years ago and eating suddenly became complicated. We finally decided a large salad from Red Robin would be acceptable.

This wasn’t strictly kosher, but it was close enough for Woodbridge. I was feeling pretty smug about my ability to navigate tricky cultural waters just as the waiter arrived with Itamar’s salad; liberally sprinkled with bacon on top.

I’m assuming the dining portion of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House this week went smoother than Itamar’s visit, but when you’re enjoying the hospitality of a man who gives the Queen of England an iPod, it probably pays to be flexible.

President Obama is latest in a long line of woolly thinkers who believe there is a “historic opportunity,” in his words, to achieve Mideast peace. The difference between this “historic opportunity” and all the other failed opportunities is Barack’s in charge now and the road to peace is paved by pressure on Israel.

US negotiators like to start with Israel because they are reasonably sure that when the Israelis agree to a policy, implementation will follow. You don’t have that degree of certainty — or any degree for that matter — with your Palestinian negotiator.

By the same token, it’s easier to negotiate with Clarice Starling than it is Hannibal Lector; but getting Clarice to agree to stop eating the census taker won’t have an impact on the accuracy of the count unless Hannibal changes his diet, too.

Unilateral Israeli agreement to Mideast peace proposals does not result in peace. There have been two lasting peace treaties: one with Jordan and the other with Egypt. Both happened when King Hussein and President Anwar Sadat realized conflict was not in their best interest and both treaties involved bilateral, simultaneous agreement.

Israel sacrificed both times. The Sinai and its oil fields were returned to Egypt; and Israel would have been willing to return much of the West Bank to Jordan, but King Hussein did not want it, which might be a hint to the White House.

That should have proved conclusively that Mideast peace is only possible when both sides want peace and are willing to respect the agreement.

But it did not, because in the world’s eyes Israel is always collectively guilty for whatever woes Arabs inflict on themselves — checkpoints limiting terrorist mobility; borders that hinder explosives imports or money–laundering controls that make it inconvenient to cash the UN welfare check.

Palestinians simply bear no responsibility for their plight. To put it in TV terms, Palestinians are “The Fonz” to most of the world and you can’t expect “Fonzie” to act any different than he does.

It’s a given “The Fonz” is governed by raging hormones while the Palestinians are governed by raging madmen. The adults, i.e. Israel, are supposed to take up the slack.

So West Bank Arabs bear no blame for their repeated failure to live up to agreements they’ve made and no condemnation for their continuing support of terror. In fact, a “grieving” West Bank mother can make a video praising the son who blew himself up in an Israeli shopping mall and Israel is criticized for bulldozing her house.

It would be real progress if Obama realized the statements of Arab leaders regarding peace and Israel, particularly those of the Palestinian Authority and neighboring Arab states, have the same intrinsic bankability as Obama’s statements in support of traditional marriage.

Obama’s supporters don’t attack him for his statements supporting traditional marriage like they do Miss California, Carrie Prejean, because they know he doesn’t mean it. It’s just a throwaway line to pacify the Christians.

Ditto for Arab leaders and their statements on peace and any pledges to dismantle terrorist organizations. Back home “the Arab street” doesn’t erupt, because they know those statements are so much eyewash to keep the Crusaders happy.

State Department intellectuals cannot grasp a concept that is blindingly obvious to any Woodbridge Baptist: until the Palestinians are convinced that they cannot win by terror, they will not negotiate in good faith for peace.

The road map to peace in the Mideast needs to arrive at a rest stop and stay there until the Arab side decides the status quo is unacceptable and puts concrete actions under their quicksand words.

Christian Draftees in the Culture War

Believers never know when a secular press gang may come along and draft them into the culture war. It could be you’ve built a large company that starts drawing media attention. Or someone in the media notices your successful book. Or you receive an invitation to a commencement, prayer breakfast, convention or Easter egg roll and humanists begin sifting through your past to uncover incorrect thinking that renders you unfit for public participation. Specifically Biblically–based Christian thinking.

When that happens the believer can stand firm and stand on the Truth or he can begin to back and fill and deny until the rooster crows. There are examples of both behaviors here,

Then, even more frequently, the secular world secretly admires the worldwide Body of Christ and it tries to appropriate the trappings of belief and graft these practices on to environmentalism or some other substitute for religion. The practitioners are just as lost, but at least it’s a disciplined form of being directionless.

What Christians must do is make the case for Christ. Denying, deflecting or ducking sets a terrible example for new and timid Christians and worst of all it denies Christ. In the following chapter you’ll see some did and some didn’t.

Chick–fil–A: Fast food, faster hate

My sympathy goes out to the president of the Prince William County, VA Chamber of Commerce. Here Rob Clapper was simply trying to line up an interesting speaker and suddenly he’s in the midst of a controversy.

Who would have thought when he scheduled Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Nathan Bedford Forrest as the November speaker that Forrest’s views on white supremacy would become the focal point of the event?

“We had begun to coordinate it long before his remarks, but his remarks are irrelevant because this chamber does not engage in or have a part in social issues, “ Clapper said.

“Regardless of what his personal beliefs are and what he’s stated about social issues, that doesn’t play a part in what he’s coming here to speak about. Many of our members...have expressed a strong desire to hear the business practices and strategies that the KKK deploys in building a nationwide organization with over one million members,” Clapper concluded.

Oh, wait — inviting a genuine bigot who promoted violence and intimidation would have been a genuine controversy. Instead what we have here is a faux controversy ginned up by the same fanatics supporting faux marriage.

When Clapper invited Chick–fil–A President Dan Cathy to speak to the chamber it should have been an interesting event with an excellent speaker. Instead Clapper is now fielding questions from hysterical grievance–mongers who make it a point to attack any public figure that does not support their unprecedented redefinition of marriage.

Well, you may say, that’s what Cathy gets for spewing his “hate” during a news conference at the National Press Club. Except that’s not what happened. Cathy was interviewed by the Baptist Press. So a Baptist news service was interviewing a prominent Baptist about his faith. Homosexual extremists had to conduct an extensive search to find something that would offend them.

What’s more, during the interview Cathy didn’t “attack homosexuals” and he didn’t “oppose homosexual marriage.” Here’s what he said after being asked if he and the company support the traditional family, “We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit…We intend to stay the course, we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

In an earlier interview with the Biblical Recorder, a weekly newspaper published by the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, Cathy said, “We are very much supportive of the family - the Biblical definition of the family unit…I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about.”

It’s not like Cathy was asked to cater a homosexual wedding, although I’m sure there will soon be an avalanche of carefully documented requests by wedding parties eager to exchange their free–range, living–will crab cake tapas for a wheelbarrow of Chick–fil–A nuggets.

Cathy was simply making a positive statement regarding what he believed. It was hardly a declaration of war on homosexual “matrimony” and I doubt many would consider the Biblical Recorder a national platform rivaling the Washington Post.

Still, Cathy does not appear to have read the part of the Constitution stipulating the separation of God and mammon. In today’s Brave Leftist World you are grudgingly allowed to practice Christianity in the privacy of your own home, as long as everyone is a willing participant and you practice “safe religion.” Of course there is zero tolerance for Christians if they start proselytizing at rest stops and in public parks.

On the other hand, if Chick–fil–A wanted to sponsor a float in a homosexual “pride” parade — where participants often dress as sexual organs and the behavior by some participants is so vile you would cover the eyes of children — Cathy might land a profile in the New York Times.

Social conservatives are in a culture war with an opponent that will accept no compromise. By the time you read this “Chick–fil–A Appreciation Day” will be over. I hope millions of Americans supported a company that is not cowed by the liberal media and homosexual extremists.

Even more, I hope that at the next chamber board meeting they not only reaffirm their invitation to Dan Cathy, but they do it between bites of a Chick–fil–A deluxe spicy chicken sandwich.

Conservative Pacifists in the Culture War

What the Occupy DC movement failed to accomplish last November, Americans for Prosperity did quite nicely on their own last Friday. You may recall last winter when the AFP held its “Defending the American Dream” summit in downtown DC, those rollicking, goodtime Occupiers tried to storm the convention center so they could harass attendees and disrupt the conference.

That Occupy effort failed. Now that the freebies have run out, there were no Occupiers at this year’s conference. But that didn’t prevent AFP organizers from disrupting their own event.

The showcase for Friday’s session was the Hands Off My Health Care Rally with featured speaker Cong. Paul Ryan. Shuttle buses were scheduled to take conference attendees to Capitol Hill.

I was part of a large group that waited outside the hotel for almost an hour. During that time tour buses, double–decker buses, jitneys, large vans and even Metro buses all rolled tantalizingly by, but no shuttle. Staffers informed us there was a problem— obviously — but not to worry, the rally was being delayed until we could arrive.

When shuttles finally materialized, we quickly boarded and slowly made our way to Union Station. Inside the parking garage we were told the bus would be returning to the hotel, because the rally was over.

So I have no insight on the current intensity of opposition to Obamacare, the size of the rally crowd or chances for repeal.

Fortunately the day was not a complete loss. During one panel guerrilla videographer James O’Keefe was asked what he thought was the greatest problem confronting conservatives. His answer was both pithy and pertinent: “Conservatives lack (a vulgar word for courage).”

Chick–fil–A President Dan Cathy proves O’Keefe’s point. A mere two days after conservative Americans made it a point to eat at his restaurants on appreciation day, Cathy canceled his scheduled speech in Prince William County. And he canceled every other public appearance scheduled for 2012.

That’s a fine how–do–you–do to all the customers who waited in line and helped set a one–day sales record so that Cathy and his company would know they are not alone in their struggle to uphold Biblical tradition in the face of a hostile culture.

Instead of publicly thanking them and continuing to conduct his business and professional life in a confident and visible manner, Cathy flees inside the bunker.

There are times in life, commerce and politics when you just have to buckle up and ride it out. And who would have thought that alleged squish Mitt Romney would provide a sterling example of just that.

Romney released two years worth of tax returns to braying Democrats and media (although I repeat myself) and said that was it.

Naturally, the failure to completely drop his drawers whipped the opposition into a frenzy. Democrat apparatchiks speculate on what’s Romney’s hiding. The media echoes the speculation. Sen. Harry Reid (D–Demented) escalates by claiming Romney hasn’t paid taxes for ten years.

Even the Weekly Standard and respected conservative columnists have surrendered and said it would be better if Romney released all his tax returns and ended the controversy.

But that would just be the beginning of the controversy and Romney knows it.

Frankly, Romney’s steely refusal to give in to the mob speaks well of his character and makes me a little more optimistic regarding his administration.

On the other hand Cathy’s ignominious retreat sends two harmful messages. The first is mom–and–pop conservatives are wasting their time when they try to resist the decline and decay of secular commercial culture. They will get little, if any positive reinforcement from the businesses they try to support and they will be either ignored or attacked by media and cultural elites.

The second message tells homosexual activists, other libertines and the left that they are winning the culture war. All that is necessary for final victory is to continue the pressure until the resistance of Middle America collapses once and for all.

Conservative leaders need to start leading. Conservatives in the House of Representatives should to stop ducking confrontation with an administration that ignores the law. Conservative business leaders are either going to have to start fighting back or acknowledge the fact they’ve made a career of exploiting the decline of American culture. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Tom Coburn (R–OK) and Rush can’t do it all.

Without leadership the majority of everyday American conservatives are going to leave the field to the leftists with disastrous consequences for the future. For as the Apostle Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 14:8 “…If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?”

Conservative Pacifists in the Culture War Part II

Christ was no doubt on to something when He limited His public ministry to three years. Any longer and a mere human may forget what he said before or, even worse, lose enthusiasm for an earlier message as the culture changes.

Which is evidently what happened to the Rev. Louie Giglio. Until recently he was scheduled to give the benediction at Obama’s second inauguration. Giglio — founder of the “Passion Conferences” that are marketed to college–age Christians — had lately been in the news for his work against human trafficking and had said grace, so to speak, over the Easter Prayer Breakfast in the White House.

But then an aggressively homosexual lobbying group dug up a sermon Giglio delivered in the mid–90’s and accused him of being an orthodox Christian that believes in the Bible. Well, that was that and Giglio lost no time beating a hasty retreat from the inauguration.

Giglio might have made a better decision if he’d listened to his own sermon before deciding to run up the white flag.

In it the reverend is addressing the homosexual onslaught that traditional culture was just beginning to experience. Giglio wisely pointed out, “We must lovingly but firmly respond to the aggressive agenda of not all, but many in the homosexual community. Underneath this issue is a very powerful and aggressive movement. That movement is not a benevolent movement, it is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle, as it relates to the family.”

That was not only wise, it was prophetic. Then Giglio mentions what both the Old and New Testament have to say regarding homosexual practices and concludes, “…homosexuality is not an alternative lifestyle...homosexuality is not just a sexual preference, homosexuality is not gay, but homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin according to the world of God…That's God’s voice. If you want to hear God’s voice, that is his voice to the issue of homosexuality. It is not ambiguous and unclear. It is very clear.”

Again, there is nothing that a plain reading of Scripture does not tell one. Giglio was not embellishing and he was certainly not personally condemning homosexuals. He just stated the obvious at it applies to the Bible and observant Christians.

Homosexual practices are not a lifestyle. The practice is a rebellion against God at the most fundamental level. God created woman for man and blessed the union. Any other arrangement is a perversion of God’s plan and God’s intent. And it remains a perversion in spite of the fact the only perversions elite culture recognizes today are smoking, obesity and magazines with a capacity larger than 10 rounds.

Giglio also said, “We must not sit quietly by and stick our heads in the sand and let whatever happens happen in our country. We've got to respond to the world we live in. That is the mandate that comes to us as people of God. And this issue is coming more and more to the forefront every day.”

Unfortunately, that is exactly what Giglio did not do. Instead he issued a weak statement that reads, “Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15 to 20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer that I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration.

"Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past 15 years. Instead, my aim is meant to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ."

This reads like it was written by the same people covering up the massacre at our consulate in Libya. And “ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ” means exactly what?

Christ is significant with or without Giglio’s help. What He needs are teachers who will engage the culture. My fellow conservatives are off the mark when they view this incident as another instance of a politically correct culture that hostile to Christianity.

The culture has always been hostile to Christianity. Good grief, Herod murdered all the male children in Bethlehem aged two or under in an effort to end Christ’s ministry before it began. You can’t get much more hostile than that.

What Giglio has done is acquiesce in the disparagement of the truth of the Bible. What kind of message does this send to the young Christians that Giglio is supposed to be leading? Does Giglio hope the culture will be at least as accepting of him as it is of tobacco executives?

Does it mean Christianity has some vaguely disreputable beliefs that we only share privately with our friends, but the philosophy is not something we want to identify with in public?

How, exactly, does that differ from a meeting of the Klan?

We are losing the culture war because Christians are lead by pacifists, as I wrote about earlier. Giglio has “evolved” from confronting the culture to surfing cultural waves. His current cause is “human trafficking,” which has a number of advantages for a timid Christian. One, all the right organizations are against human trafficking. Two, you get to hobnob with celebrities. And three the chances of offending someone in the congregation are infinitesimal.

Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, asked the Washington Post: "Are all Orthodox clergy now to be banished from civic life if they openly affirm their faith's teaching about marriage and sexual ethics? Are only clergy from declining liberal denominations now acceptable according to hyper–political correctness? With the same standard also apply to Muslims and members of other faiths who don't subscribe to the views of Western secular elites?”

Giglio evidently thinks refusing to confront the administration’s “Heretics Only” drinking fountain policy is being polite. But the message it sends the flock is one of weakness and vacillation when it comes to the plain language of the tougher parts of the New and Old Testament.

And it really compares poorly with the Catholic bishop who is preparing to go to jail rather than comply with the Obamacare abortion mandate.

Lou Giglio is building a ministry designed to attract the young in Atlanta. Up until now the name was “Passion City.” In light of his failure to affirm his own message, I suggest Giglio might want to consider changing the name to “Mildly Enthusiastic (But Not to the Point Where We Would Offend Anyone) City.”

Evangelicals Flying Blind

Prominent on the list of things we didn’t know we needed is the new code of ethics for preachers released this year by the National Association of Evangelicals. It appears evangelical pastors have been flying blind, without any sort of guidance as to Christian behavior in the pulpit and church offices.

Leaving church ladies at the mercy of pastors gone wild.

The new code also means I’ve wasted hundreds of dollars on Bibles and commentaries that — judging by the NAE — provide no real structure for living a life that glorifies Christ.

Dang! Where did I put those receipts?

Until now I’d assumed external offenses are handled quite nicely by criminal law and internal offenses governed by the Bible. That’s what I get for practicing theology without a divinity degree.

Luder Whitlock, former president of the Reformed Theological Seminary, explained in a Christianity Today interview, “Clergy intend to do the right thing, but…when you have a world that’s swirling with change like ours and so few people know the Bible well, it’s all the more imperative to come up with something like this.”

In other words, the Bible might have been comprehensive enough for nomadic tribesmen who followed a smoke signal instead of a GPS signal, but not modern iPhone man. But if these people “don’t know the Bible well” what are they doing in the pulpit?

Helping God out when it comes to rules and regulations is nothing new in ecclesiastical circles. I belong to a church that was so strict Jesus couldn’t be a deacon. You see the Lord and Savior was also a drinker and it is forbidden to imbibe.

But even our canonical rule writers failed to stay current. So it came to pass that one could smoke crack with Mayor Barry and be a deacon in good standing, but one “easy pour” Miller and you’re out.

However, I remain convinced the Ten Commandments, Golden Rule and the New Testament will cover any modern eventuality. The NAE cites pastors involved in extramarital affairs (7th Commandment), sexual assault (7th & Golden Rule) and financial fraud (8th & 10th Commandment, Golden Rule). Expanding our search we find pastors guilty of homosexual abuse of minors (7th, 1st Corinthians 6:9, Luke 17:2), visiting prostitutes (7th and 1st Corinthians 5:1), tax fraud (8th & 9th Commandments), stealing babies (8th & 10th Commandments), assault (Golden Rule) and misrepresenting credentials (9th Commandment).

So where are the loopholes?

Pastor Joel Hunter, who signed the code, told the Washington Times: “There’s a need that we’re reminded of when we see pastors living unethical lives. We want to raise the level of accountability because apparently some pastors believe they’re a law unto themselves.”

A statement that sounds remarkably like the boastful Pharisee in Luke 18:10–11: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.”

Pastors are already held to a higher standard. In James 3:1 it says, “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.” Not a verse you hear too often from the pulpit since it puts a real damper on Sunday school teacher recruitment.

It just goes to show somewhere, someone is pouring the foundation on a new Tower of Babel every day. Codes like this were only a matter of time after churches started developing “mission statements.” If the Great Commission isn’t your mission, what is?

Too many Christian leaders are slightly embarrassed by the Bible. They’ve forgotten their apologetics and simply apologize when it comes to the eternal Truth.

No wonder people are leaving the church. If the religious leadership doesn’t have enough faith in the applicability of the Bible to modern life to live by it, why should the congregation pay attention? Meanwhile the morals and tone of the culture at large continue a precipitous decline as Christians and pagans alike make it up as they go along.

The earnest people at the NAE with their new “code” are unfortunately contributing to the erosion of confidence in the Bible among their own believers and certainly among the secular world. Where does this quest for relevance stop?

For example, NAE is currently holding firm on homosexual marriage, but for how much longer? Biblical marriage certainly doesn't conform to modern mores. If you can revise and extend the commandments, what's to stop you from joining the Unitarians and revising marriage?

Paul tells us — pastors and parishioners alike — to “put on the full armor of God.” He certainly felt that “armor” was up to the challenge. I wonder why the leaders of the NAE don’t feel the same?

Why Doesn’t George Zimmerman Mind His Own Business?

Once a vigilante, always a vigilante.

One would think that after enduring a nationally–televised trial and being the subject of a current Department of Justice witch hunt, George Zimmerman would finally mind his own business. But no, Zimmerman continues to poke his nose into situations better handled by public safety professionals. (As I’ve previously written about in ‘The only thing George Zimmerman didn’t do is play lacrosse’ and ‘Nine out of ten journalists say, “Guilty!”’)

Last Wednesday, Zimmerman came across a Ford Explorer that had just been involved in a car crash. The SUV had turned over and a family of four was trapped inside as the damaged car began smoking.

If Zimmerman would simply take the advice of experts like Russell Moore, the recently appointed head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, he would have either stayed in his car and dialed 9–1–1 or simply driven down the road; content in the knowledge that expert medical specialists were on the way and would no doubt be on scene before the car exploded.

But no, this EMT wannabe had to jump out of his car and rush over to the wreck where he helped the family escape. The only thing Zimmerman didn’t do was arrange a news conference to announce his deed. The media learned of his unauthorized rescue activities when the Seminole County Sheriff’s office announced it on Monday. So at least Zimmerman is not guilty of practicing PR without a license.

Moore thinks Zimmerman is a buttinski who is causing white America to forget it should be feeling guilty. In an interview with the Washington Post Moore explains, “Most white evangelicals, white Americans, are seeing this microscopically in terms of this verdict, and most African Americans are seeing it macroscopically. It’s Trayvon Martin, it’s Emmitt Till, it’s Medgar Evers, it’s my son, it’s my neighbor’s son, it’s my situation that I had. . . . Most white Americans say, “We don’t know what happened that night,” and [whites] are missing the point.”

Moore doesn’t explain why white Americans are taking their lead on racial solidarity from a Hispanic like Zimmerman. But as a Southern Baptist, I can assure you I’ll think twice before I take my theology lead from Dr. Moore.

Lining up with the “Rev.” Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson (who has been known to feel a bit uneasy in the past when approached by black youth wearing gang attire), Moore goes on to say, “Regardless of what Trayvon Martin was doing or not doing that night, you have someone who was taking upon himself some sort of vigilante justice, even by getting out of the car. Regardless of what the legal verdict was, this was wrong.”

Based on that statement, I’m going to assume Moore also gave the movie Machine Gun Preacher two thumbs down. Regardless of the good doctor’s movie preferences, the ignorance and arrogance in that statement are breathtaking.

George Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain and he was on patrol that night. He was watching, which is what the neighborhood watch does. Zimmerman lived in the neighborhood, Martin did not. The angelic and childlike Martin was staying with his father’s girlfriend because he was serving his third suspension from school and mom was tired of being disobeyed.

Zimmerman was already outside his car looking for Martin when the 9–1–1 dispatcher said, “Okay, we don’t need you to do that.” The dispatcher is not a sworn law enforcement officer and the statement does not have the force of law. Different dispatchers will tell you different things. When Moore has guests over for dinner and they show up with food or a bottle of vintage Welch’s (he is a Baptist, after all) and the wife says, “Oh, you didn’t have to do that,” does Moore force them to return the item to their car?

Besides, there actually was crime in the area Zimmerman volunteered to patrol. Police records show eight burglaries, nine thefts and one shooting in the prior year. Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowner’s association, observed, “He once caught a thief and an arrest was made. (Zimmerman) helped solve a lot of crimes.”

The behavior that Moore advocates closely resembles what witnesses to the fatal confrontation actually did. One man heard the commotion, looked out the window and called 9–1–1. Since he wasn’t a “vigilante” or “wannabe” that was the sum total of his civic duty for the evening.

Yet if he had walked outside and yelled at Martin to stop pounding Zimmerman because he was calling the police, there’s a chance Martin would have stopped and thereby survived the encounter.

Instead, by being the Passive Samaritans, witnesses did nothing to protect anyone’s life. Even the police will tell you when seconds count — they are minutes away.

Moore finishes destroying his credibility by observing, “And when you add this to the larger context of racial profiling and a legal system that does seem to have systemic injustices as it relates to African Americans with arrests and sentencing, I think that makes for a huge crisis. . . ”

This inaccurate cant is something you expect from a Berkeley sociology professor. It's always a bit daunting to cast Bible verses at a theologian, but does the phrase "for whatever one sows, that will he also reap" ring a bell for Dr. Moore?

Most of us won’t ever be involved in a fight for our lives, but the following could well happen. Let’s say you find yourself alone and in trouble on a dark, cold and rainy night. Who would you rather have chance by and observe your predicament: Russell Moore or George Zimmerman?

Too Many Battles, Not Enough Bible

Any television show that simultaneously confounds the pagans and the heretics can’t be all bad. But there’s a basic flaw in the History Channel’s The Bible that makes it hard for the cultural Christian or the spiritual seeker to absorb the message.

This is not to say the program isn’t popular. In fact, it’s wildly popular, but I fear we are preaching to the choir. The opening episode of The Bible attracted 13.1 million viewers, the largest cable audience of the year, and topped both editions of “American Idol” the same week.

Episode two had 10.8 million viewers, more than any other program in the same time period and it finished 11th overall for the week. The third episode gained viewers, inching up to 10.9 million, and was number nine for the week.

This is even more startling when you recall, as Daniel Wattenberg of the Washington Times pointed out, that The Bible “lacked the ready–made, large scale promotional platform and popular lead–in that can drive strong ratings for a new show on a major broadcast network…” It also lacked the nudity, bad language, obscene cartoon characters and titillation that excites the prurient interest of many cable TV viewers — although it does contain some off–screen fornication, adultery and murder.

On the other hand The Bible had thousands of mentions in church bulletins and word of mouth to help build the audience. (The program is proving to be a Godsend for youth ministries across America.)

So what’s not to like?

As the program is structured it appeals to Christians who know the Bible or think they know it, yet it answers no questions and puts nothing in perspective for the curious viewer who wants to learn more about the Good Book. In fact, the program runs a very real risk of alienating those viewers.

It is very easy for them to ask: Why does a supposedly loving God command King Saul to kill everyone? Why are the Israelites attacking Canaanites who have done them no wrong and were there first? Why did it take 40 years to get from Egypt to the Promised Land? Why didn’t Moses get to enter the Promised Land? What did the Sodomites do that was so bad? (No pun intended.) If David is such a sinner, why does God love him and not other sinners He had killed? What did a child like Ishmael do to deserve banishment? Why did God toy with Abraham and Isaac?

And those are just the questions from the first two episodes! After about the third killing spree Buddhism starts to look pretty good, to say nothing of Unitarianism.

The Bible is ten hours long but even that length means much is truncated and condensed. (Why couldn’t The Hobbit have dispensed with some of the padding and been only Hobbit I and Hobbit II, giving the excess to The Bible?) The series cries out for a narration to bridge the gap and provide continuity and explanation.

Even better, each episode should be followed by a 15–minute scholarly discussion among experts to put the events into an overall context. I don’t mean the secular culture’s favorite Bible experts: Bart Ehrman, the agnostic professor of religion, and Karen Armstrong, the failed nun who is liable to believe most anything. This duo would chuckle and explain how these blood–thirsty folk tales are a product of their time, with little relevance to today’s enlightened society. If God were commissioning a bible nowadays, the content and teaching would be much different.

No, the overview portion would feature solid, believing scholars who can explain and put the Bible into context. They could observe Genesis concerns the long fall of man and how God intervenes to save the righteous few. Once He sets the Israelites apart from the rest of man, God’s intent is for them to be a pure and holy race: literally the chosen people. He knows man is weak and He does not want the Israelites to be contaminated by the fallen tribes in Canaan, who are sinners that practice child sacrifice; fallen beyond the hope of redemption.

The Israelites spend 40 years in the wilderness because they did not believe God and rejected His command to take the Promised Land. God waited until that generation died out and only the two good spies — Joshua and Caleb — remained. Moses did not enter the Promised Land because he disobeyed God in front of the Israelites.

David was a sinner and a serial sinner at that, but he recognized his sins and begged God for forgiveness. Even at that he paid a price for his transgressions. Ishmael was banished because he was the product of a sin originating with Sarah and was not part of God’s plan for Abraham, but even at that God heard Abraham’s plea and Ishmael fathered a great nation. But it was a nation that contended with the Israelites.

And God tested Abraham’s trust to prove he was worthy to be the founder of the chosen people.

But none of this is evident from just watching The Bible.

The producers could even have had young people ask the questions of the experts in a roundtable setting. It would not be any more unrealistic than an Obama town meeting or episode of Real Housewives of DC and might bring some of the searching to Christ.

No doubt the DVD will have something like this in the ‘extras’ portion. Unfortunately, that will be too late. Only the sold buy the DVD, the browsers have already moved on.

Parody

(I’ve been a Weekly Standard subscriber for almost 13 years and in that time I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I’ve found the backpage ‘Parody’ to be funny. When the B–T–K killer story below came to my attention, I thought it would be perfect for a WS parody of the church bulletin. Weekly Standard editors thought otherwise and didn’t publish it. I still think it’s funny so here it is.)

B–T–K Suspect Still in Church

Associated Press

WICHITA, KN – The pastor of the church whose leaders include the suspect in the BTK serial killings visited Dennis Rader in jail and told him that he will continue to be a part of the congregation.

"We are not going to cut him off. I could tell that he was relieved," the Rev. Michael Clark, pastor of Christ Lutheran Church in Wichita said Wednesday. "He is still a part of the body of Christ, and that is something some people will have a hard time hearing."

For now, Rader remains president of the church's governing council, although he will eventually have to relinquish some church leadership responsibilities, Clark said.

(Inside page of this week’s Church bulletin from Christ Lutheran Church)

(HEADLINE)

Schedule Changes & Postponements

(BODY COPY)

The weekly meeting of the CLC governing council will be postponed until further notice. Due to scheduling conflicts, arraignment and a severe limitation on the number of visitors the president can receive at one time, the council thinks it best to wait until our application for a video link to the courthouse is approved. If you know of a ‘computer geek’ who can help with the wiring, please call the Church office.

Also the FBI has thoughtfully scheduled a make–good polygraph session for those who missed the first one.

(HEADLINE)

Deacons: Don’t Forget to Bring Your DNA Sample Next Sunday

(Body Copy)

We all know how hectic Sunday mornings can be, but Deacons please remember to get your DNA samples in to the Church by this Sunday. Hair, fingernail clippings or cheek swabs are all acceptable. One word of warning, don’t drop your sample in the collection plate. Instead there will be a drop box at the Greeter’s Table just inside the main door to the sanctuary.

(HEADLINE)

Exciting New Opportunity for Outreach

(Body Copy)

Now that it appears we will have a member of CLC’s leadership team working on the inside, it looks like our long awaited prison ministry may finally get off the ground. Predictions are, with appeals, we will have a few months to ramp up before we actually start our visitations, but it’s never too early to begin preparation. Assuming he’s in the general population, we know Dennis will be working hard to boost attendance from the very first service.

(HEADLINE)

A Word from Your Pastor

(BODY COPY)

My Mother always warned me to be careful what I pray for and last week as I forced my way through reporters and tried to find a parking place in our lot (ATTN Reporters: The ‘Pastor’ parking spot is used seven days–a–week!!!!) I almost regretted all those times I wished we were the featured Church on the ‘Religion’ page in the Wichita Eagle.

I will say life has a way of showing you what’s really important. I used to think preparing a sermon on homosexuality or suitable menu items for the ‘hot dish supper’ was a minefield, but that doesn’t hold a candle to recent events! I felt like last week’s news conference (and I can assure you it wasn’t the Good News!) was held in front of the Pharisees.

In light of some of the comments I’ve received afterwards, under the present circumstances I will no longer be referring to the ‘Body of Christ’ in sermons, news conferences or casual discussions. Instead until further notice it’s the ‘community of Christ,’ which actually has a nice alliterative feel.

Our journey through the Walk is never boring. Last week’s body cavity search prior to my visitation with Dennis was genuinely a new experience…

Kermit’s Lament

For those readers currently on the fence, let me assure you that when it comes to adopting a system for ordering your life the more you learn about enviro–worship, the better Christianity looks.

For one, being a Baptist requires much less bookkeeping and investigation on the practitioner’s part, particularly when it comes to food.

A report this weekend from newspaper competition in DC reveals that in at least one DC restaurant the “green cuisine” was not living up to it’s billing.

The fact there is such a food genre as “green cuisine” and that customers actually care about it, will no doubt come as a shock to residents of Prince William County, VA where I live.

We either don’t have enough time on our hands; suffer from a feeling deficit or lack sufficient sensitivity to be neurotic regarding our nourishment. But evidently in the rarified atmosphere of our nation’s capitol elite nannytarians have quite the checklist to go through before choosing their restaurant.

I’ve had the misfortune to eat at a couple of these “cutting edge” establishments and I thought the only requirement for satisfied customers was an affinity for vertical food presentation. Waiters arrive toting trashcan lid–sized plates where your overpriced entrée is stacked higher than a Katrina debris pile.

It’s like eating Pik–Up Stiks. One never knows when removing a carrot will destabilize the entire structure causing it to collapse into your lap.

I prefer my meals horizontal and my restaurant checklist begins with price and ends with taste, which I suppose makes me a climate criminal.

Still, who would have thought that being a “green” diner required you to wear a green eyeshade and interview your food? For a true “greenie” the pre–meal menu checklist requires the food be:

Family farmed

But not corporate farmed

Local

Organic (this means no pesticides, usually indicated by the small holes in the produce where the bugs sampled your food first)

Free–range or at least not confined in a critter condo

Dispatched by lethal injection

And “sustainable”

It’s less complicated finding a date on eHarmony.

One bone of contention at the DC restaurant was the provenance of the fish. It seems the salmon came from a corporate seafood farm where the fish are forced to float in large clouds of benzene, like on Jupiter.

Environmentally aware eco–diners demand fish either arrive still wet from the Potomac (God help you) or be hand–raised in a Druid’s bathtub.

So essentially you have a situation where the elites have no problem eating in an establishment where the kitchen staff and busboys are undocumented, but they want a birth certificate with their fish.

One Canadian “digital cartographer” visiting DC for a “biodiesel conference,” presumably to learn how to fill both your stomach and your auto at Krispy Kreme, felt “misled” when a spoil–sport reporter called her to blow the whistle on the fish. (Another first: when’s the last time a Washington Post reporter was concerned about the national origin of a story subject?)

Meanwhile, I’m wondering where exactly in the DC area did this “cartographer” think the salmon were running?

And don’t get me started on the vegetables. Most of these yuppie poseurs have never grown so much as a bell pepper, but they want the tubers on their plate to come from the same Zip Code as the restaurant.

Why if the Obama’s can make do with a truck garden, why can’t the rest of us?

I’m not sure what it is about traveling that so upsets your average eggplant, but “sustainable” dining won’t allow it. I envision maps with area farms marked and circled by red travel radii for radishes, like the old nuclear blast damage maps we worried about during the Cold War.

I’m wondering what these part–time Gregor Mendels are going to do when they discover that local, friendly fresh family farmed food means no tomatoes in the winter and no mangos ever.

My idea of “sustainable” food is a rack of ribs and a side of coleslaw from Dixie Bones. I have those tender ribs for lunch — slowly roasted over smoldering carcinogens —and it sustains me for the remainder of the day. The only way to improve this meal would be to wrap each rib in bacon.

On the other hand, arugula, tofu and other fru–fru “green” menu items are basically unsustainable. You choke down a meal of this moral–posturing cuisine and you’ll be hungry and fretful in less than an hour.

Kermit–the–Frog was right: it’s tough being “green.”

Charlie Brown for Governor

Last Sunday Bob McDonnell sat behind me in church and he didn’t appear the least bit suicidal. McDonnell didn’t sing too loud or try to address the congregation when he was introduced, which went a long way toward winning my vote.

An especially impressive performance when you realize he’d helped torpedo his own campaign a few days earlier when he told the Washington Post where to find his master’s thesis from CBN University.

I’ve been trying to analyze his decision and I can’t find a rational explanation. He’s in an interview with Washington Post reporters who are aggressively secular; view Christian social doctrine as bigoted, hateful and backward; voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama and believe the Virginia’s governor’s race is a referendum on Obama.

McDonnell’s a devout Christian, who attended a university founded by the Post’s favorite religious fanatic: Pat Robertson. His thesis is almost 100 pages and filled with conservative Christian beliefs perfect for taking out of context.

Note to Bob: Let the Post do its own research. Or why not just tell the Post you used to go clubbing with Mark Sanford and be done with it?

Even Michelle Obama had enough sense to try and restrict access to her master’s thesis until after the election and she’s only the candidate’s wife.

As far as the Post is concerned, VA Republicans are the gift that keeps on giving. First George Allen and now McDonnell. Here’s what McDonnell hath wrought: this area is filled with individuals and groups who oppose everything he stands for, but this opposition is not newsworthy because it’s so predicable.

Feminists, abortionists and homosexuals don’t like McDonnell. Ho Hum.

But Bob’s decision to play librarian gives the Post an excuse to gin up a “controversy” and repeatedly showcase these opinions as if they were newsworthy by using a campaign development from 20 years ago! It’s a win–win: the Post gets to relive the Allen–Webb campaign and cliched liberals get to recycle their failed ideology.

What the McDonnell campaign should have done was prepare for the potential discovery by putting views from 20 years ago into context for today and recruit a group of third–party spokespersons prepared to answer any attack.

Then if the thesis surfaces, the campaign is ready to go with prepared remarks and advocates. What you don’t do is hand the enemy a bullet and then act surprised when you get shot.

They tell a story about Huey Long running for governor of Louisiana. He’s giving a populist stem-winder in Baton Rouge and then later in the week he’s campaigning in more conservative Shreveport. There Huey takes a position that’s completely opposite.

Everything’s fine, except for a traveling salesman who heard Huey in each location. So the salesman demands an immediate explanation.

Huey looks at the salesman and says, “Well, I was lying in Baton Rouge.”

Which is a better response than what McDonnell is using now.

Bob spends 90 minutes on the phone with the death panel at the Post saying his views have changed. Plus he’s not one of those scary Republicans because he’s agreed with Tim Kaine and Obama; and some of his best friends are interior decorators.

Great. Now McDonnell looks weak, uncertain and wishy-washy.

Former VA GOP Chairman Pat McSweeney gave McDonnell sage advice when he said you can lose votes by taking a stand and offending people; you can avoid taking a stand and alienate people who want a leader; and you can backpedal from beliefs you previously held. But God help the candidate who does all three.

McDonnell’s answer should have been: “This is 2009 and not 1989. As governor I want to create jobs and economic opportunity for men and women alike. Although the ideal situation for young children is a two–parent family where the mother works as the homemaker and the father works as the breadwinner, life is not always ideal and families are often faced with a situation where both parents are forced work outside the home. And that’s why women held management positions in my attorney general’s office, women are key parts of my campaign and women will play a crucial role in the future of Virginia when I’m governor.”

Then if Deeds and his media enablers want to dwell on homosexual marriage, abortion and other social issues, McDonnell simply refuses to answer hypothetical questions and adds that hysterical hyperventilating about his “secret plan” is silly. He has a record in the legislature and the attorney general’s office that shows exactly how he will perform as governor.

If McDonnell runs his race on the agenda set by the Post he will lose. If he lets the Post decide which issue positions are allowed, he will lose. You don’t have to have all the votes to win an election; you just need enough to win.

Evangelicals Swing Both Ways on Social Issues

A significant proportion of the US population feels marginalized and suffers from perceived widespread disrespect. Their desires are discounted and in some instances actively discouraged by state, federal and local government. Families are either split or prevented from coming together, which results in children who are denied the benefits of a two–parent family. Circumstances beyond the control of these individuals have put them in the shadows, outside the mainstream of American society and at the mercy of an often cruel and heartless public.

And that’s why Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Public Policy Center have both come out in support of homosexual marriage. As Daly said in an interview with Christianity Today, “What are the solutions to help get these families together, get them in a lawful state, one that can be recognized, and then move forward? I think that is a healthy situation for the country. Let's get behind this, not play politics with it left or right and not fearmonger with it. These are people that need dignity. Even though in some cases they've broken the law, there's always that heartfelt story out there where you just tear up looking at what they're facing now. We need to do what's humane.”

No wait. That’s the quote Daly used in support of amnesty for illegal aliens. As of the time this post was written Focus and the Southern Baptists still oppose homosexual marriage. But can someone point out to me why their reasoning on illegal aliens doesn’t apply to homosexuals, too? Both groups have been in an unlawful relationship for a number of years and they want to either escape worldly consequences in one case and Biblical responsibility in the other.

I know the Bible says welcome the stranger and not welcome the sodomite, but when you base your theology on feelings instead of Truth, there is no difference in the two situations. A plain reading of the Bible shows marriage is one man to one woman and homosexuality is prohibited — occasionally by fire and brimstone. And strangers are to be welcomed as individuals by individuals, but nowhere does it say stealth invasions in violation of the law are to be encouraged. In fact, I would challenge anyone to show me where in the Bible a law breaker or sinner is rewarded for his or her transgression?

Or for that matter, where people are encouraged to emulate a class of law breakers in the future?

The situation is simply not there. Illegals aren’t mentioned by name in either testament, but if we can’t apply observations or analogous situations from the Bible to modern life, then the book is dead and useless.

Look at how similar both situations are. Both population groups feel put upon. Homosexuals and illegals want to come out of the shadows and gain the stamp of approval from government and society at large: A marriage license in one case and documentos de ciudadanía in the other.

If Daly and my own Southern Baptist governing body are to be consistent, then they have to either support both or oppose both.

Prior to the Supreme Court decision that branded people like me who oppose the perversion of God’s institution of marriage as hate–filled bigots, Daly and Focus helped to produce an e–book that contained five questions and answers about same sex marriage that outlined their opposition. The irony is the same questions and answers apply to illegal aliens, but they support legalizing them.

Here are the questions and answers with the marriage–related in regular text and the illegal–related in boldface.

1. Why does marriage matter to the government? Why do borders matter to the government?

Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage ensures the well-being of children…Government recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for having and raising children. Borders protect citizens from the incursions of lawbreakers great and small and it makes sure the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship go to people who have earned it. Defending the borders is one of the principle responsibilities of government.

2. What are the consequences of redefining marriage? What are the consequences of redefining citizenship?

Redefining marriage would hurt children. Decades of social science-including very recent and robust studies-show that children do better when raised by a married mom and dad.

Redefining marriage would further separate marriage from the needs of children. It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that a child needs a mom and a dad. Redefining citizenship would hurt the rule of law. Separating citizenship from the responsibility to obey the law only encourages future disrespect for the law and future illegal immigration. Ideally law–abiding individuals make better citizens.

3. Why do you want to interfere with love? Why can't we just live and let live? Why do you want to interfere with ambition?

Marriage laws don't ban anything; they define marriage. Immigration law doesn’t ban ambition, it only defines where one is allowed to be ambitious.

4. Isn't denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry the same as a ban on interracial marriage? Aren’t immigration law supporters just using the law as an excuse for bigotry?

No. Racism kept the races apart, and that is a bad thing. Marriage unites the two sexes, and that is a good thing. Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. No. Immigration law is color–blind, but it cannot be geography–blind. The fact that most illegal border crossers come from countries adjacent to the US does not make the enforcement of the law biased, no more than spraying for mosquitoes means you oppose flying.

5. Why doesn't government just get out of the marriage business altogether? Why doesn’t government get out of the employment verification business altogether?

Marriage is society's best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life…A study by the left-leaning Brookings Institution found that, between 1970 and 1996, $229 billion in welfare expenditures could be attributed to social problems related to the breakdown of marriage. A good job is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life. Illegal immigrants are exploited by employers and compete unfairly with low–income workers. Americans would be happy to do the work now taken by illegals if the pay rates were not distorted and artificially depressed by law–breakers. Employers who circumvent the market and rig the system against the people who need the jobs the most, create unemployment which increases stress on families and marriages.

There is no intellectual consistency in Daly’s or the SBC’s position on illegal immigration and homosexual marriage. Daly contends, “When you look at it, the immigration issue is not just a legal issue. We respect what needs to be done there and hopefully we can strengthen laws, enforce laws and do all the things that we need to do in that way, because it's important for a country to establish its borders and maintain its borders. But when you look at the family impact now and the stories we've received over the past year or two, it's pretty tragic what's occurring.”

Illegal immigration breaks at least three of the Ten Commandments. Illegals often steal the identity of citizens to get papers. They lie about their status in the country. And the motivation that brought them here in the first place was coveting a lifestyle they didn’t have.

And what’s occurring is all self–induced. Would Daly advocate keeping a drug addict supplied with heroin so he won’t feel compelled to steal and possibly break up his family if he’s sent to jail? How about telling a wife to put up with infidelity if it keeps the family together and the children aren’t upset?

Daly and the SBC are busy undermining their credibility and authority. It’s a shame. I expected better.

The First Church of Druidical Science

There are reports that mainline pastors all across America are avoiding sermons on the topic of hell. It appears there is something about burning forever in a lake of fire that modern church goers find a bit too negative on a sunny Sunday morning.

Why, it’s getting to where if you want authentic hellfire–and–damnation preaching you have to find an environmentalist. The difference being Christians refer to punishment in the future; but for environmentalists it’s always hell on earth.

Environmentalism offers everything but hope for its human practitioners. As a child I read a tract that was frightening and my current pastor regularly reminds the congregation that we fall short, but Grace is available to all if you accept the offer.

Environmentalism, on the other hand is constant, non–stop hectoring.

Humans using up natural resources, killing baby seals, creating sprawl, warming the planet, voting for Bush and leaving the toilet seat up. Environmental cultists refer to humans as a virus or invasive species.

This faith is the original tiny tent. Their ultimate goal is to return the planet — slightly used — to the critters and reduce the human population to the bare minimum necessary to turn the compost piles. It’s nature without the nurture.

Not to pull a tyrant out of a hat, but this philosophy is remarkably close to Joe Stalin’s observation that where there is man, there are problems — but no man, no problem.

This is a very austere faith that requires total concentration and mental discipline. Hebrews 11:1 tells Christians, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

But that’s not enough for greens. They must be able to deny the obvious. Last week the Post a published graph that showed even the statistically–challenged that peak temperatures have been declining in this area since 1988.

This is an actual fact, not a computer model that predicts temperatures like Lehman Brothers predicted mortgages.

But combustion is the Original Sin of environmentalism, so Priestess Pelosi is still pushing for legislation to combat “global warming.”

It’s quite remarkable how well established the Church of Environmentalism has become since the first Earth Day. In less than 40 years this faith has swept the nation, produced unshakeable dogma, penetrated the halls of Congress and identified heretics all without a single practitioner being fed to the lions.

As a consequence, the faith has also acquired all the problems found in today’s mainline churches, including getting the congregation to show up for worship.

Fewer and fewer families are actually going outside to enjoy the environment. Campgrounds are adding concierge services that put up your tent, cook your food and slap your mosquitoes in an effort to boost attendance. Some parks are even adding Internet connections, ice cream socials and concerts, which starts to sound a lot like the contemporary worship in mainline churches to me.

But what does the environmental priesthood expect when they work diligently to make people feel unwelcome in the wilderness? Just recently environmental lawyers celebrated when they banned road and trail construction in more than 50 million acres of national forest, which is one–third of the total managed by the Forest Service.

That’s what I call putting the altar out of reach. A first century Jew stood a better chance of sneaking a peek into the Holy of Holies inside the Temple in Jerusalem than a modern day suburbanite does of experiencing the forests their tax dollars support.

And speaking of Jerusalem, the environmentalists even have their own Pharisees, who defined hypocrisy in the New Testament.

Environmental Pharisees like Al Gore and Thomas Friedman enjoy a huge carbon footprint lifestyle and justify their hypocrisy by buying “carbon offsets.” This is a scam where wealthy first–world greens pay poverty–stricken third–world helots to squat in their mud huts postponing modern civilization. This allows Gore and Friedman to average their carbon consumption over a larger base.

Rich Catholics in the middle ages tried a similar dodge to avoid the penalties of sin. They bought their way out of punishment, while the poor had to toe the line. Historians call it buying an indulgence, but all it did was generate controversy and Lutherans.

Environmentalism is a grim creed — Hellish you might say — with no room for good news. Green fanatics recently tried to stop the construction of a road in Maryland because it might — they won’t know for sure until they consult a shaman — disturb an eagle’s nest.

This ignores the fact that although in 1963 there were only 417 nesting pairs of eagles in the entire lower 48 states — today there are over 1,000 in the Chesapeake Bay region alone.

Which tells me eagles don’t really have a problem with us; it’s the environmentalists who can’t stand living around people.

Death Is Cheapened in VA

Teresa Lewis is currently Virginia’s only woman on Death Row (although she may have permanently vacated the premises by the time you read this). Lewis earned her death sentence by conspiring to murder her husband and stepson for insurance money with the help of her backwoods lover and his trusty sidekick.

It’s been 98 years since a woman was executed in Virginia. Getting a hard count on the number of men sent to a higher court after 1912 is difficult — carving notches on ‘Old Sparky’ left something to be desired as a database. But since 1976, and the reinstitution of the death penalty, more than 100 men have been executed, compared with zero women.

Simultaneously we’ve had female chiefs of police, female sheriffs and female prosecutors, so women — even the ambiguous ones — are having an obvious impact on the law enforcement side of the ledger.

So what about female impact on the law–breaking side? If women are going to be taken seriously as criminals and earn the fear and anxiety that men already generate, then it’s high time a woman broke the glass syringe and was executed.

So what’s with the feminists? Just when I’m ready to support their agenda, they go south on me and start bleating for clemency. And the liberal arguments for letting Lewis off the needle are so sexist and so 1950’s!

She’s a woman. She’s subject to raging hormonal influences. She is suffering from the fantods. She couldn’t resist the influence of two big, strong men. She can’t stand the sight of blood. (Well, maybe not that one, since she went through her husband’s pockets while he was bleeding to death.) She’s a mother. She’s a grandmother. She’s retarded. She sings hymns. Take your pick.

Liberals, who are functionally illiterate when it comes to economics, use a version of the dismal science’s “sunk costs” when evaluating the results of a murder: the victim is dead and won’t be coming back, so let’s focus on the killer and demonstrate how moral we are by overturning her death sentence.

These arguments for sparing the life of a murderer would be more persuasive if liberals offered to adopt the killer or otherwise demonstrate a personal commitment. Liberals, however, prefer to view the beneficiaries of their largess from a distance, so they stick the guards with prisoners who know any additional murders committed in prison are freebies and move on to their next cause.

Currently compassion tourists are highlighting the “unfairness” of Lewis’ sentence since she was the only conspirator sentenced to death. As is typical in these multi–offender affairs, the youngest, Rodney Fuller, was offered and accepted a life sentence to turn on the other two.

Lewis’ lawyers knew the facts looked bad and a jury might not take kindly to a woman who had forced her 16–year–old daughter to have sex with Fuller to seal the deal. They maneuvered to get her before Judge Charles Strauss who had approved Fuller’s deal and had never issued a death sentence.

Lewis pled guilty, assuming she would get life.

It didn’t work out that way. Viewing her as “the head of this serpent” Strauss awarded a death sentence.

Finally, Lewis’ lover, Matthew Shallenberger, went to trial, but midway got cold feet and pled guilty. Judge Strauss, a simple rural jurist immune to logic, decided that since Fuller got life in prison, he owed it to Shallenberger to give him life, too.

Actually, there was no equivalence. Fuller cooperated, accepted a plea bargain and kept the deal. Shallenberger refused to cooperate and expected a jury to keep him alive.

Judge Strauss should have sentenced him to death.

Lewis and her scheming lawyers gambled and lost. Now they want a do–over. Too bad her dead husband and stepson don’t qualify for one, too.

Death is the ultimate sanction for the ultimate crime. These constant efforts to overturn death sentences on the basis of social worker “evidence” and the musings of mental health professionals only serve to cheapen the murder of the victims.

The criminal justice system is a human institution subject to all the failings inherent in any human system. There is no perfect justice short of that meted out on Judgment Day. (And my pastor assures me I don’t want justice then, I want mercy.)

For most of us way to avoid potential “unfairness” at the hands of judges and prosecutors is both simple and obvious: don’t break the law.

Oh yes, there is one added note. As a result of the Lewis case, we have learned where reporters and other social arbiters believe the open practice of Christianity is not offensive, intolerant, hateful, exclusionary or somehow upsetting to Muslims.

Unfortunately the approved location is Death Row.

Two Grooms Does Not a Marriage Make

John Hawkins, proprietor of Right Wing News, recently selected his favorite quotes from C. S. Lewis. One has a great deal of relevance with regard to President Obama’s recent embrace of homosexual marriage.

“No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did...The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority that the patient refuses to accept. And therefore resents.”

Coverage of Obama’s announcement stressed how his views evolved, but truth be told his view didn’t so much “evolve” as revolve. In 1996 when Obama first ran for the Illinois State Senate, he was a strong supporter of homosexual marriage. Now, like the earth around the sun, choose–your–own–plumbing marriage has done a complete orbit of The Obama and arrived where it began.

That a peripheral question like this could have any role, however large or small, in a presidential election is yet another indicator that we live in a decadent age. Homosexual marriage is the Rosemary’s Baby of political questions: The unholy product of a union between the “living Constitution” and the “living Bible” crowd.

“Living Constitution” advocates interpret the document to support whatever faculty lounge fad is currently making the rounds in intellectual circles. In the last 50 years the Constitution has gone from a document protecting individual liberty to a grimy little pamphlet protecting the sexual proclivities of the libertine set.

The Bible has not fared any better. It could not be more clear on homosexual practices, yet there are clergy who take it upon themselves to breathe a little life into that dusty scroll. The Post quotes the Rev. Clement Aapengnu of St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church claiming, “Who has the authority to define what marriage is?”

For starters I would have said the church does, based on the Bible, but if one doesn’t regard the Bible as the inspired word of God, then the book becomes just an ancient collection of folktales. We don’t take child–rearing advice from Hansel & Gretel, so why consult the Bible for a definition of marriage?

In fact that’s pretty much the take of the Post’s “religion” columnist Lisa Miller who wrote last week, “On the specifics of what constitutes a “good” or “right” kind of family, the Scriptures offer no guidance at all.”

The interesting question is why make the change now? Obama was going to carry Hollywood and San Francisco anyway, why take a chance on alienating red state voters?

Each time homosexual marriage has been put before voters it has, without exception, lost. North Carolina, the most recent state to vote, ratified man–woman marriage by a landslide 61 percent.

In its top–down campaign of sexual enlightenment, the media drags out various polls that show when the choice is binary between regular marriage and imitation marriage 51 percent support imitation marriage. When offered “civil unions” as a third option, support for homosexual marriage plummets to 38 percent.

This, however, is not good news for social conservatives. There is essentially no difference between civil unions and marriage. Just as the marriage of male and female by a justice of the peace has all the rights and privileges of a wedding in a church, the civil union is essentially the same as heterosexual marriage.

Even worse, as we saw in California, once they get “civil unions” the homosexual lobby terms it “second class” marriage and uses its existence to prove discrimination in the courts.

You don’t have to be a Wal–Mart shopper to fall prey to incoherent thinking with regard to homosexuals and the family. Mitt Romney, to his credit, opposes both homosexual marriage and civil unions. But then Romney says he does not oppose two random homosexuals who decide it might be fun to play house and adopt a child without even the formality of marriage.

If your basis for defining marriage is the “feelings” and “love” of the interested parties, then no coherent intellectual argument can be made to define numbers of wives or husbands and, with a bit of evolving, their ages. It’s not a slippery slope, this change is a leap into the abyss.

Currently Obama reassures the religious that he supports a same–sex marriage law that is “respectful of religious liberty.” Which sounds a lot like what he said regarding forcing religious institutions to cover abortion and contraception before the passage of Obamacare and we know how that turned out.

Blindsided

Last week marked the debut of two movies featuring overweight black teenagers as the central character. Movie reviewers (a chronic incubator of “progressive” thinking) found one movie “important,” “inspiring,” “compelling,” “transformative” and “a triumph.” It won the Grand Jury & Audience awards at the Sundance Film Festival and received a 15–minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival.

The other movie was described as “unremarkable,” “undemanding,” “superficial,” “obvious” and “unsatisfying” with an overall failing grade of 57 percent at the Rotten Tomatoes web site.

From the following descriptions, can you guess which movie was the darling of the intellectual set and which movie resonates with Wal–Mart shoppers? (Warning mild to detailed plot spoilers to come.)

In Precious, a functionally illiterate, morbidly obese, black teenage girl is raped repeatedly by her father. One incestuous coupling produces an infant with Down syndrome. Precious lives at home with a cruel and physically abusive mother in a ghetto neighborhood. She is withdrawn, hates her appearance, uses fantasy as a coping mechanism and has no social skills.

A second pregnancy results in her being sent to an alternative school where a lesbian teacher and social worker combine to try and reach the girl hidden inside her shell. The movie ends with Precious, who is still the size of the Hindenburg, landing in a new government program and being informed that during one of his rapes her “father” has infected her with AIDS.

In 1987, the time period of the movie, this is a death sentence.

The Blind Side starts with Michael Oher functionally illiterate, living on the streets in a ghetto neighborhood, with a crack ‘ho for a mother, eating discarded concession stand food, possessing only a single change of clothes, hidden in a shell, with no social skills.

So far what’s not to like about The Blind Side? Sounds like the movie is well on the way to wild applause on the film festival circuit.

But then differences rear their ugly heads.

In The Blind Side an evangelical Christian white woman takes Michael into her home and into her family. He is given a scholarship to a prestigious Christian school and a private tutor — hired by his new family — brings his grades up. Michael starts to play football and earns a scholarship to a major university. He grows to love his adopted family and becomes a new person.

At the university, Michael achieves All–American football status, his grades put him on the Dean’s List, he is drafted in the NFL’s first round by the Baltimore Ravens and, judging from the pictures over the credits, he has slimmed down without resorting to fad diets.

In “elite opinion” circles a black person is allowed to indulge in many varieties of degraded behavior and exhibit any number of dangerous pathologies without causing so much as a raised eyebrow, but nothing keeps elite festival–attendee behinds in the seats like the hero relying on white people, the private sector or a Christian to change his life.

As the reviewer for the Village Voice hissed, “the (Blind Side) peddles the most insidious kind of racism, one in which whiteys are virtuous saviors, coming to the rescue of African-Americans who become superfluous in narratives that are supposed to be about them.”

“Progressives” are much more comfortable with white people dragging black teenagers behind pickup trucks. It confuses them when Christians act like Christians.

Precious a feel–good movie for liberals because what miniscule progress the girl makes is facilitated by a lesbian teacher, a social worker and a halfway house. It’s a trifecta for modern “progressives!”

“Progressives” watch Precious and pretend to empathize while still feeling superior. Because Precious does not ask the uncomfortable question of why aren’t YOU doing more to help, because, as the New York Times says, “An unstated but self-evident moral of Precious, … is that government can provide not only a safety net, but also, in small and consequential ways, a lifeline.”

So the viewer is personally off the hook, just keep voting for Democrats and stand by for Nirvana.

Christians see The Blind Side and feel inadequate because the movie asks Christians in the audience are you doing enough? And the answer is no, we are not doing enough. We need to do more. We need to do it now.

Christians and conservatives (not always one and the same) complain that Hollywood doesn’t make good movies. But if Christians want Hollywood to make good movies, then Christians have to buy tickets to see the good movie Hollywood makes.

The Blind Side is that good movie. Unless you are a “progressive intellectual” you will enjoy it, but you will also wonder what can you do to make a difference?

You don’t have to start a foundation, pass legislation or ride your unicycle across America to raise money. Just take the advice of Thomas a Kempis: “Do the duty nearest you.”

A Ten Commandments Scorecard

There are times when an event dominates the news for a few weeks but the impact passes you by. Certainly you are aware of controversy, after all you’ve got the ink from the newsprint on your fingers, but the concepts involved seemed so abstract that you had great difficulty generating any interest on your own behalf.

That was my response to the 10 Commandments controversy a few months ago. I knew a state judge lost his job over his support for displaying a monument, the ACLU was laying it’s usual barrage of lawsuits and the mainstream media (MSM) was in full pursuit of those snake–handling; faith–healing; Jesus–praising; sodomite–bashing; demon rum–abstaining fundamentalists who were trying to jam their niche beliefs down the throats of an easily influenced public.

And, frankly, I was a little embarrassed by my fellow Christians for choosing a fight that I did not think was winnable, given the prevailing sentiment of the times. (Being embarrassed by belief is a common response on the part of those who should be standing up publicly for their faith, rather than being made uncomfortable by those that do.)

But as time has passed, I’m struck again by how virulent the response to a few tons of inert granite was on the part of the Defenders of Our Freedom, i.e., the License Lobby. I’ve spent more than a few hours roaming Civil War battlefields. It’s inspiring to spend time walking on ground that has known great and noble deeds, as opposed to say walking on my front lawn, which is a field of grinding misery, failed expectations and perpetual serfdom.

As a Union supporter (2nd VT Volunteer Infantry to be precise), I’ve never felt the least bit threatened by the Confederate memorials, even though many of them depict rebels bearing firearms, presumably to be used against Union types like myself.

Yet a few words of text on a table caused sent the secular crowd, the majority of them liberal Democrats or fellow travelers, into a tizzy. So I wondered, could it be that rather than oppose what appeared to be government support of religion, they were opposed to the 10 Commandments as a concept and guide for living?

With that thought clutched firmly in my grasp (at my age clutching firmly is necessary as thoughts can sometimes slip away if not watched closely) I decided to rate the Democrats and Republican parties on their support or opposition to each individual commandment, rather than judge their views on granite.

COMMANDMENT ONE: You Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me

This is a tough one for a party like the Democrats that welcomes wiccans, pagans, humanists, Hindus, druids, athiests and Unitarians. Republicans probably have more than one party member who secretly worships mammon, but they aren’t holding rallies, printing tee–shirts or marching in parades. So I have to give this one to the GOP.

COMMANDMENT TWO: You Shall Not Make for Yourself a Carved Image--Any Likeness of Anything That Is in Heaven Above, or that Is in the Earth Beneath, or That Is in the Water Under the Earth.

I’m not going to reduce myself to inventorying Karl Rove bobble–head dolls or contending that environmentalists worship uncarved wood, so I’ll give both parties positive marks here.

COMMANDMENT THREE: You Shall Not Take the Name of the LORD Your God in Vain.

I do this, to my regret and shame, but it’s an individual sin and neither party does it officially, but you can’t ignore the fact the Democrats promote a broadcasting and popular culture where using the Lord’s name in vain is not a G–D problem. So the nod here goes GOP.

COMMANDMENT FOUR: Remember the Sabbath Day, to Keep It Holy.

Observed only in the breach by both parties, although I will note that most Blue Laws in the South were repealed by Democrats; of course they were originally passed by Democrats, too…

COMMANDMENT FIVE: Honor Your Father and Your Mother.

A definite difference here; can a party that promotes, encourages and subsidizes families built around homosexual attraction truly be said to honor mothers and fathers? You will note in the commandment the mother and father are together, but that is certainly not the case in an alternate lifestyle family. For those combinations the rule is mother and test tube or father and adoption papers. So the GOP gets a second win.

COMMANDMENT SIX: You Shall Not Murder.

Democrats equal abortion. Republicans equal life. I say no more.

COMMANDMENT SEVEN: You Shall Not Commit Adultery.

Okay, another tough one. Both parties have members who like to walk on the wild side, but only the Democrats defended a president who was a serial adulterer and downplayed the sin itself. So although both parties have members who stray, only one party defends the wanderer.

COMMANDMENT EIGHT: You Shall Not Steal.

Let’s see, I could highlight the sticky–fingered Dems who permeate city government in DC, but the opposition can counter with Randy Cunningham and Bob Ney. No winners here, but the taxpayers are always losers.

COMMANDMENT NINE: You Shall Not Bear False Witness Against Your Neighbor.

Lying. An impossible standard for a politician or political party.

COMMANDMENT TEN: You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.

This is easy. The Democrats are the party of envy. If you have it and they don’t, then something is wrong. How long is this list? Money, jobs, education, success, happiness; where do you stop? Democrat leadership and activists can’t be happy because somewhere, someone has something they might want. Democrat envy drives most of the ‘social justice’ agenda of the party. Republicans believe you should have an equal chance, but not be guaranteed and equal outcome.

So the tally is:

Republicans

No score: One

Following Commandment: Seven

Disobeying Commandment: Two

Democrats

No score: One

Following Commandment: One

Disobeying Commandment: Eight

So there, in a nutshell, may be the reason for the disproportionate reaction to a block of granite with text on it. It’s not the establishment of religion, it’s the reminder of how far from the path their party’s philosophy has strayed.

That tablet doesn’t force them to join anything, but it may make them reflect and they cannot take that chance.

Christians as Strange Life Form

Most of our journalists and other members of the cultural elite rarely come into contact with a practicing Christian. So when they do, often the response is to treat the Christian as if he’s a member of some lost tribe of intolerance, shackled by outdated views and out of step with the great sweep of history.

The resulting story either holds the Christian up to ridicule, contempt or condescending sympathy; or the reporter goes anthropologist and attempts to analyze these strange superstitions and put the beliefs into context for the modern reader.

Neither approach ends up well for Christians.

Probably the most painful stories for believers to read are those where a clueless reporter attempts to update the Gospel and make it more relevant to today’s world. Failing that, they want to completely eliminate Christ and simply hijack his teaching so they have the rules without the religion.

Jesus, Another Innocent Man Wrongly Convicted

Few pastimes are more entertaining than witnessing a smug, non–orthodox Jew giving instruction on New Testament theology to Christians. Last Saturday the most reverend Lisa Miller in her Washington Post ‘Belief Watch’ column asked readers, “Is gun ownership Christian?

This puts believers at an immediate disadvantage because Christ did not spend much of his ministry discussing consumer goods. He mentions the odd cloak, fragrant ointment, sword and widow’s mite, but one would not confuse Him with Ralph Nader or other marketplace stalwarts.

Besides, since Miller picks and chooses what she believes in regard to her own faith, she has no problem distorting the Gospel in an effort to draft Jesus into Code Pink.

She begins by completely misunderstanding the significance of Jesus on the cross. Miller writes, “The Christian Lord allowed himself to be crucified rather than fight the injustice of the death sentence imposed on him.” To co–opt Mark Twain; this is an inability to distinguish between lightning and the lightning bug.

On the contrary, it was not a miscarriage of justice. The sentence was the fulfillment of divine justice. Christ willingly substituted Himself on the cross in place of a sinful mankind. God did not alter the terms of the first Covenant with Abraham. There was a price to be paid for man’s rebellion and he decided to pay it Himself. (This refusal to “evolve” on the part of the creator, should give pause to modern “Christian” leader’s attempts to revise and soften the New Testament, but it doesn’t.)

Consequently, Christ was not the earliest recruit for the left’s anti–capitol punishment movement. Christ died for our sins. He willingly paid the price we could not pay and ushered in the New Covenant.

There would be no Christians without Christ’s death on the cross. Even if the Jerusalem chapter of the Innocence Project had tried to get Him off the hook, He would have refused the offer, because to do so would have rendered His work pointless.

After that inauspicious beginning, Miller moves on to the point of her column, “How do such Christians reconcile their stalwart commitment to the Second Amendment with their belief in a gospel that preaches nonviolence?” And then she quotes Matthew 5:39 – “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

This leads me to believe Miller was also not a fan of the excellent movie “Machine Gun Preacher.”

Then it left me wondering if I had missed a recent development on the violence front, so I did an online search on “strike AND cheek AND gunfight” to see if there had been a rash of concealed carry permit holders (CCW) lighting up people who slapped them.

That search string was a bust, so I tried “strike AND cheek AND shoot” with the same result. Evidently there is no problem with Christian gun owners initiating violence. Miller’s goal appears to involve persuading Christians to join the ranks of the defenseless. This decision, however, would not be made in a vacuum. Should a Christian head of household decide to disarm because he believes guns are inherently evil, like cigarettes or 16 oz. sodas, his decision would not affect him alone. His wife, his children and mom in the basement would all instantly become draftees in the War for Pacifism.

And the family would be misguided draftees at that. As Adam Clarke points out in his commentary on the passage, these “exhortations belong to those principally who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” Say for example, an orthodox Christian that leftists like Miller slap up the side of the head for refusing to support homosexual marriage. Following Matthew, the Christian would turn the other cheek as he said he does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle either.

The verse is most certainly not directed toward ancient or modern Christians with a desire to defend their persons or their family.

Then Miller snidely intimates that “conservative Christian leaders are not falling over themselves to proclaim in public their pro–gun theologies.” But then Miller proceeds to list various Christians who are doing just that.

She takes issue with Richard Land, a former Southern Baptist Convention official, who said during a December interview on National People’s Radio (NPR) that he supports arming teachers. And Miller concludes with David French, senior counsel for the American Center of Law and Justice, who told her “Turn the other cheek does not mean turn your wife’s cheek or turn your children’s cheek.”

Miller — who works for an organization sporting guards who check commoners before they are allowed to enter — replies, “Provocative, but unconvincing. Jesus identified with the weak, not the strong; with the victims, not the shooters (or the people with the guns).”

Wrong again. Jesus praised a Roman centurion who controlled his own sword and 90 others — for his faith, saying, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.” What’s more, Jesus reached out to the weak and the victims, but unlike leftist community organizers, He considered Himself a shepherd and the shepherd doesn’t hand the wolf a napkin as he approaches the herd.

There’s another verse that’s very germane to this discussion, although Miller manages to overlook it. Luke 6:42 advises, “Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

Miller would do more to protect the innocent life of children if she would worry less about the imaginary threat of “assault weapons” in the hands of Christians and more about the real threat of “assault doctors*” who are responsible for the deaths of over 1 million innocents each year during abortions.

*Thanks to my wife, Janet, for this inspired term that aptly describes a depraved occupation.

Imagine. No Religion, too.

There’s a woman who lives near me with a personalized license plate that proclaims she’s a WICCAN. If her idea of theology is a penetrating discussion with a pecan tree and she wants to proclaim her lasting commitment to cellulose; that’s her right. Even though the sentiment appears on a plate issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

She’s joined by motorists displaying plates with DRUID, PAGAN and even VEGAN.

Although the thought processes behind the adoption of these belief systems are opaque to me — much like the decision to go out and get a tattoo — knowing religion–oriented plates are out there does not bother me.

However, one can’t say that for atheists. Evidently their lack of faith is so fragile that exposure to slightest whiff of Christianity has the potential to propel them backwards into superstition. The next thing you know they’re eating Wednesday night dinner in a Baptist Fellowship Hall and wondering why there are never any salt shakers.

Atheists and the separation–of–church–and–state crowd are busy banning Bibles in schools, crosses from Utah roadsides and the phrase “God bless you” from funerals in a Houston VA cemetery. Consequently, they aren’t focused on license plates, but I have a feeling it’s on a To–Do list somewhere.

Readers who rely on the news media for their Constitutional instruction may not know this, but the document is not actively anti–religion. The founders were believers and the thought of banning government from even the most glancing connection with God would have seemed absurd to them.

The Constitution only prohibits the establishment of a state religion, for example: Emperor worship during the Roman Empire or the Anglican Church in England under Henry VIII.

The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. This atheist catchphrase originated in a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson and has no more force of law than this column.

And Jefferson, bless his heart, had his idiosyncrasies. Acting as the Gutenberg of the scissors and a paste–pot set, Jefferson produced his own Bible by literally cutting out the parts he didn’t like and keeping what he did.

This may make him the first Unitarian and would probably qualify Jefferson to be ordained as a bishop in the Episcopal Church, but it does not make him a reliable source on the religious views of the founders.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume the religion scrubbers are correct and the Constitution justifies purging all trace of worship from the public square. The question is what type of government do they think will result?

A cool, clean empire of intellect ruled by Mr. Spock? Maybe, but China is more likely.

This would make many progressives very happy, including those in the White House. China is a communist government run by experts. (A two–fer in progressive circles.) These experts don’t get bogged down in partisan gridlock caused by annoying Republicans who smoke. Decisions are made based on science, not politics. Plus, the experts are Asian and everyone knows how smart they are.

China is also rich. And it has bullet trains that fly between major cities. State–sponsored abortion is legal. (You could almost call it human sacrifice, but that sounds too much like religion.) And since there is only one party, there are no messy political campaigns and tacky commercials.

China is everything a secular humanist could wish for, until a toddler gets hit by a truck.

Then you learn the price for removing religion from the public square. 18 different people in Guangzhou watched as a two–year–old girl, who wandered into traffic, was smashed by delivery van. They left her lying bloody in the street until she was run over by a truck. Finally, after seven minutes an elderly scrap peddler, who may not have had anything to lose, dragged her out of the street.

People don’t help injured two–year–olds in China because helping others is not state–approved behavior. In 2007 a young man was sued after he helped an elderly woman with a broken leg to the hospital. The Wall Street Journal reports the court ordered the rescuer to pay 40 percent of the woman’s medical bills because “according to common sense” he would not have helped her if he had not been in some way responsible for her fall.

This is social Darwinism as a governing philosophy. Altruism only creates suspicion in a government where religion is banned.

This is why over time the religion haters won’t like the government that results from their efforts. Because when you jettison God you also jettison the Good Samaritan.

Cathedral of Can’t We All Get Along?

This Christmas brings another “can’t we all just get along“ story that again demonstrates how the media fails to understand committed Christians.

According to the Washington Post, the Higher Education Research Institute found Catholic colleges had a higher percentage of Muslim students than the average secular four–year school.

In typical MSM tail–wags–dog fashion the story is written from the perspective of two Muslim students attending Catholic University in Northeast Washington: A female from Saudi Arabia and a male from Iran.

The students are exposed to, “a life–size painting of Jesus carrying the cross...every classroom is adorned with a crucifix...Professors often open their classes with an appeal to Jesus.” The female student was even required to buy a Bible for a class on the Old Testament! (A book she will have to discard when she returns home, since Bibles are not allowed inside Islamic–ruled Saudi Arabia).

So where’s the story? It’s not like the Muslims are attending Unitarian University. There it would be a big surprise to find crosses, appeals to Jesus and a focus on Christianity, but it’s hardly news to discover Catholics at a university named for the faith.

Instead the reason for the coverage is in the observation, “The influx has astonished and sometimes befuddled administrators. Some Catholic campuses are creating prayer rooms for new Muslim students and hiring Islamic chaplains to minister to them. Others are unsure of how to adapt.”

From the reporter’s viewpoint, hiring Muslim chaplains at a Catholic university is a good thing: One pre–modern superstition accommodating another. What could be better? Unless, of course, some fanatic wants an Ishmael and the manger scene on the quad at Christmas.

But from a genuine Catholic point of view, “adapting” and creating a Muslim prayer room is a betrayal of 2,000 years of the faith. Why would a real Catholic university, confident in the truth of Christianity, encourage students to engage in error?

According to the ACCU, 58 percent of incoming freshmen at Catholic schools identify as Catholic — meaning over 40 percent are from other denominations. Yet, I know of no Baptist chaplains at Catholic colleges and we are much closer theologically than Islam.

Baptist–Catholic differences are doctrinal. For example, we prefer potential converts be old enough to get to the Baptismal under their own power and the conversion experience contain more moisture than is imparted by your average sneeze. And we hold to “sola scriptura,” the belief that the Bible contains all the knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

But when it comes to dogma, the set of principles incontrovertibly true, Catholics and Baptists walk side–by–side.

Islam, on the other hand, isn’t even in the ballpark. To mention but a few differences, Jesus is not divine, did not die on the cross and is not the path to salvation. The Golden Rule only applies to other Muslims, not mankind. And there is no Holy Spirit and people who believe that are polytheists.

Compared to that gulf in theology, the average Baptist minister is qualified to be a cardinal.

‘Catholic’ schools that enable Muslim students are what the faithful refer to as Catholic In Name Only, like Holy Cross in Massachusetts. This is a school with an association of Bisexuals, Gays and Lesbians. It allowed a conference that invited Planned Parenthood. So naturally it founded MECCA: the Muslim Endeavor to Create Cultural Awareness.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn WICCA was also in the planning stages at a school that has obviously lost its way.

The students profiled choose Catholic University because, “there is something powerful here because people are thinking about God all the time and not just about their own life or studies.” An admirable outlook, making them a prime audience for what a Catholic school should be in the business of doing: exposure and conversion to Christianity. Encouraging the practice of Islam, as the media would have it do, betrays the Great Commission.

When the Apostle Paul addressed the pagans in Athens, some of whom worshiped an idol to the “unknown god.” His message was not let’s form an Association of Students of the Unknown God. Paul believed, acted on that belief and invited the audience to join him.

These students know in their hearts there is a Creator and they are yearning to be closer to Him. A Catholic university’s mission is to demonstrate through words and actions that the way to realize that goal is through Christ.

Otherwise the school is just another theologically unmoored, formerly religious institution that has succumbed to the secular world and it’s philosophy of the Great Permission.

Searching for the ‘Moderate’ Christian

I enjoy reading the letters sent to advice columnists. It’s a handy, anecdotal way to chart the decline of modern culture. There’s actually a book in this; comparing the difference in questions during the early 60’s with what we have today. But I fear I’m too lazy to do the research.

On the other hand, I normally avoid reading the answers, because the advice from these moral equivalizers and cultural fad surfers has a tendency to enrage me and the family tries to discourage shouting while reading the newspaper. (Although I make an exception and always read Miss Manners. She remains a beacon of tradition and reason on most matters cultural.)

Sometimes though the temptation is too great, as happened last Thursday. Carolyn Hax, who does cutting edge advice for the Washington Post — for people who are drifting, clueless yet strongly opinionated — answered a letter that touched on religion: “My husband and I are non-Christians living in a small town in the Bible Belt. We have made some friends (it took a while) who are fun people and share most of our values, except religion. I don’t have a problem being friends with people of different religions; I consider it none of my business what other people believe, and just wish they would extend me the same courtesy!

These friends are evangelical Christians and invite us to church almost every time we see them. At first, I thought they were just being friendly. After the thousandth time, I feel like it’s really obnoxious and disrespectful. I’ve always just smiled and politely declined, but they keep bringing it up. Is there a way to salvage the friendship while putting my foot down?

This is how modern education and culture leaves one unprepared. I’m sure the woman in question would have had no problem dealing with a request to swap husbands (don’t nice people get bored, too?), but refusing to attend church when you don’t have one of your own seems standoffish. From the context of the letter, one gets the impression the couple are “nones” rather than Hindus, Moslems or Druids. Agnostic or apathetic rather than atheists, since the actively ungodly are usually in your face about it, much like the homosexual lobby.

So this young couple is thrown by circumstance into this den of divinity and they finally meet a couple whose company they enjoy. In fact, they like the couple even though they are Christians. No invitations to rub the snake, expel the demon or participate in a love offering for the pastor’s Cadillac; just the odd invitation to attend church.

One gets the feeling the couple likes the Bible beaters in spite of the fact they are Christians. What they never appear to consider is the reverse: They like the couple because they are Christians. And the couple likes the letter writer in spite of the fact they are not active Christians?

Living a truly Christian life is a package deal. It’s not just maintaining perfect attendance in the sanctuary so you’ll also make the roll call up yonder. It’s how you act, relate to others, conduct your life, conduct your business and work to make your life glorify God.

And it’s hard. I was talking to a friend Saturday morning about a rough spot he’d encountered in his church and I observed that it’s too bad that in his wisdom God didn’t have angels build and operate the church. Things would run much more smoothly, to say nothing of always providing a role model for a fallen mankind. But He didn’t, so we have to do our best and that often falls short.

An important part of the Christian package is the Great Commission where Jesus instructed us to go and make disciples of the world. Personal evangelism is very hard and rejection is potentially embarrassing. It’s much easier to send a check to Franklin Graham and delegate outreach to him. I rarely do it and I hope Jesus is not as embarrassed to acknowledge me before God on the Day of Judgment, as I am to acknowledge Him here on earth.

So this “none” couple has the good fortune to meet a Christian couple that tries to live a Christian life in all its facets, up to and including the Great Commission. The letter writer entirely overlooks the fact the couple may be so attractive because of being a Christian has done for them. And it could do the same for the letter writer, too, if she would give Jesus a chance.

Possibly the letter writer might be more comfortable with a less committed couple, say two Episcopalians. Or if they simply wanted to find someone who has warm feelings for a bright light they can try a Unitarian. In a pinch even a Methodist might serve.

(Keep in mind none of this advice applies if the letter writer is part of a homosexual couple. Then the Episcopal would be chasing them down the street.)

Heck for that matter, they could meet me: The lazy, vaguely embarrassed Christian.

But I would advise them to stay away from my wife for she is liable to invite you to church at the drop of a hat.

Life Is a Better Choice

This last chapter really needs no introduction. Life is not the better choice, it’s actually the only choice for Christians. In fact it’s such an important topic that it deserves it’s own chapter.

A Newton for Our Time

Last week a man who personally performed or supervised 75,000 abortions — including two on his own girlfriends — died. He helped found NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League), the largest abortion lobby in the US. And before a “progressive” Supreme Court legalized infanticide, he used loopholes and subterfuge to perform abortions that were marginally legal.

Yet he departed this world redeemed because — like John Newton in the 19th Century — Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson repudiated his participation in the greatest moral evil of his age.

Newton was a former slave ship captain who ferried human cargo. On a typical voyage 15 percent of the slaves died and the rest were essentially dead to the moral sensibilities of their fellow man. Newton found Christ in the depths of his depravity and later wrote, “Amazing Grace.”

“Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,

That saved a wretch like me.

I once was lost but now am found,

Was blind, but now I see.”

Nathanson was blind and wretched, too before he confronted the evil known as “choice” in sophisticated circles, but in his words is “the satanic world of abortion.”

Once he realized the depth of his error, Nathanson produced a testimony in the form of film depicting the abortion of a 12–week–old unborn called “The Silent Scream.” Viewable at: www.silentscream.org—video1.htm

Nathanson’s public confession and rejection of the abortion industry was an unexpected asset for the Choose Life movement. President Reagan screened the film and urged members of Congress to do the same.

Strangely enough the Associated Press obituary refers to this titanic reversal as a “change of heart,” making it sound like one day Nathanson decided to stop wearing argyle socks and stick with solids instead.

In fact, Nathanson’s very public repudiation of his life’s work was an indictment of everything he had been, done and advocated previously. The atheist abortionist transformed into a Catholic advocate for the unborn.

What’s equivalent to this “change of heart?” Hitler becomes a rabbi? David Duke organizes an Obama fundraiser? Rosie O’Donnell marries a man? It’s difficult to imagine a comparison that does the change justice.

Still, it’s unfortunate Dr. Nathanson didn’t live to see the Virginia General Assembly break a 20–year deadlock and finally pass a bill that regulates abortion “clinics.”

Prior to the passage of this bill, Choose Death advocates were perfectly happy with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as long as it applied to abortion mills. We have their sincere assurances that first–trimester abortions are among the “safest procedures.” (But we have to take their word for it, because Virginia abortionists have fought every reporting requirement tooth and nail.)

And if you are one of those indecisive women who require a second or third–trimester abortion, “Planned Termination” refers you to an equally “safe” out–of–state abortionist like Philadelphia’s Dr. Kermit Gosnell.

Unfortunately for Karnamaya Mongar of Woodbridge, VA, that clinic was where she died at the hands of the highly recommended Dr. Gosnell, who now faces murder charges for her death and killing seven babies born alive.

I’m sure VA abortion providers will be updating their Gosnell review on Yelp.com.

Abortion cheerleader Jessica Honke was quoted as saying passage of the bill was “a devastating day for women of Virginia” because some, most, all (it depends on the hysteric who’s asked) of the Virginia abortionaries will be forced to close because they will be “regulated as hospitals” and can’t afford the cost to upgrade the facilities.

A surprising sentiment. I thought big–government “progressives” supported an all–encompassing commercial regulatory regime specifically designed to run under–capitalized, fly–by–night operators out of business. I guess in Virginia that only applies to yoga instructors.

As Susan Hays of AAA Women for Choice in Manassas observed, “Dental offices and even barbershops have more regulations than these clinics.”

The truth is the regulations will be produced by the Virginia Board of Health, which is currently dominated by appointees of Tim “personally opposed, but still willing to lend political support to abortion” Kaine. And it’s not one size fits all, hospital categories include inpatient, psychiatric, rehabilitation and outpatient surgical. Each category has its own set of rules.

No doubt those worthies on the board will favor the weakest regulatory system possible. I predict the final requirements will fall somewhere between a nail solon and a chiropractor’s office. But it’s a start.

You Can’t Be a Little Bit “Private”

(At first glace you may question what a column that starts off with red light cameras has to do with the unborn? Please continue reading and you’ll see where the issue connects.)

Who’d have thought lawbreakers would have an effective lobby and among Republicans at that! What’s more, it’s not the expected Wall Street miscreants; it’s mean street miscreants. Red–light runners now boast renewed influence in the Virginia General Assembly. My own Del. Scott Lingamfelter just introduced a bill that halts the installation of new “photo red” traffic enforcement cameras.

You may be asking yourself how a normally solid, reliable, conservative Republican — regardless of the area where he’s elected — can be induced to make it easier for scofflaws to endanger the rest of our lives.

It’s a legitimate question and the answer demonstrates yet again how leftist and “progressive” thought so permeates the culture that even conservatives can be fooled.

Del. Lingamfelter has two reasons for introducing his bill. The first is an out–of–date study that showed an increase in rear–end collisions at intersections as drivers, who would normally run the red light without a second thought, slam on the brakes when there is a chance the violation might cost them $50.00.

In law enforcement terms this is called deterrence. Until recently I was under the impression crime deterrence was a good thing. The knuckle–head in question is then rear–ended by the fool behind him, who’s goal was to be an accomplice in the red–light running scheme, but became aware of the change of plans too late to avoid the collision.

Where, exactly, is the party for whom we are supposed to feel sympathy? The situation looks to me like a win–win for the law–abiding population coming to a gradual stop anyway.

It makes sense not to follow an idiot through an intersection when the light is amber and when a law enforcement initiative is beginning to show signs of success; it’s not time to pull the plug.

Besides, Lingamfelter’s data has been superseded by a study released Tuesday that found the traffic fatalities dropped by 26 percent over five years at District of Columbia intersections with red light cameras, which was a bit more than the average decline in the other 13 cities studied.

The new report also reveals that even where rear–end collisions increase, the injury potential of a rear–end crash is much less than that of being hit broadside. The fact that 64 percent of the fatalities in T–bone crashes were not the inconsiderate lout that ran the light, but the person he hit, is a stronger endorsement for more red–light cameras.

But the use of obsolete crash data is not the big problem I have with Lingamfelter and Republicans around the nation who consistently oppose the technology. It’s the second reason: as Lingamfelter puts it: cameras “infringe on civil rights by invading the privacy of drivers.”

This is where pervasive leftist kultursmog enters the picture. There is no “right to privacy” in the Constitution. The word “privacy” does not appear in the document. As Constitutional scholar Robert Bork has written, if you embrace the fictitious “right to privacy” then you also embrace the flawed legal reasoning behind Roe v Wade. They are conjoined twins.

This privacy fantasy has so permeated modern culture that even the esteemed Virginia–based Rutherford Institute — defender of conservatives and Christians — has fallen for this “privacy” propaganda.

Justice Harry Blackmun invented the “right to privacy” then grafted the concept onto a “living Constitution.” Blackmun’s new Constitution became a death warrant for 40 million and counting unborn babies.

You can’t be a little bit private any more than you can be a little bit pregnant. The concept is part and parcel of the left’s assault on the family, Christian values and the unborn. Which is why “privacy” is the last argument that conservatives should ever use to justify passing or repealing a law.

Red–light cameras are actually a step up from the TSA’s Underwear Police who take photos of the innocent and guilty alike for their later viewing pleasure. Red–light cameras only photograph the guilty, leaving the innocent as private as you please.

It would be better for Republicans in the General Assembly who oppose the cameras to do so because they claim having your car’s picture taken steals it’s mojo or interferes with the on–board computer; rather than relying on any of Harry Blackmun’s “reasoning.”

If conservatives truly believe red–light cameras in Virginia or elsewhere endanger privacy then they need to pass legislation addressing that issue and stop relying on the reasoning of the author of abortion on demand.

Then lawbreakers can quit bothering respectable Republicans and conservatives and return to their natural lobbyists the ACLU.

“Choose Electrolux” Plate Available Soon

Last year Virginia’s liberal “progressives” — whose commitment to the free marketplace of ideas endures only so long as it exclusively supports their views — were outraged over the advent of the “Choose Life” personalized license plate.

There’s just something about trying to keep babies alive that makes their blood boil.

Gov. Tim Kaine, described by the Washington Post as “a Catholic who personally opposes abortion,” signed legislation authorizing the plate. This “personally opposed” phrasing by Catholic members of the Party of Death, is not a statement of strong moral standards. It’s simply a dodge that says these particular convictions are so limp and malleable they won’t actually take any positive political steps to support their own beliefs.

Nancy Keenan, fervent supporter of capital punishment for the unborn and president of NARAL Pro–Choice America, complained, “It is unfortunate that, even after receiving thousands of messages from Virginians and pro-choice activists across the country, Gov. Kaine has opted to sign a bill that advances a divisive political ideology at the expense of women's health."

This legislative session NARAL and Planned Parenthood are lobbying for a plate and I support the effort. If my side can have a “Choose Life” plate, I see no reason why NARAL and its ilk should be denied a “Choose Death” plate. After all, fair is fair.

The “Choose Life” plate is a straightforward design, it reads “Choose life” across the top in a childlike crayon–looking typeface and it has an equally childlike drawing of a boy and a girl on the left.

The message is simple: choose to let these children live.

The pro–abortion plate is simple, clean and I guarantee it is the antithesis of childlike. For me, there is a certain amount of confusion associated with the stylized figure at the bottom (see illustration). At first glance it appears the woman is jumping for joy since the baby’s dead. But if you turn your head just a bit, it can also look like she’s fleeing the abortionist’s vacuum.

But there is no confusion with regard to the slogan: it clearly says the “progressive” lobby knows the A–word is the kiss of death, so to speak.

Instead their plate has the slogan “Trust Women. Respect Choice.”

Ambiguity thy name is liberal. Trust what exactly? Trust women to choose the best restaurant for lunch? The deodorant that doesn’t leave messy rings? The tampon that doesn’t interfere with an active lifestyle?

Oh, wait, I see; trust women to make the choice that says your little life doesn’t outweigh the inconvenience your birth and subsequent existence will cause me. That choice, the word people don’t like to mention in polite company or display on license plates.

After the first 1,000 Choose Life plates are sold, $15 of the $25.00 annual fee goes to Heartbeat International, which is one of the dreaded Christian pregnancy organizations that advise women to save the baby.

NARAL and it’s posse objects to Heartbeat getting a dime, because it is not a “medical” organization with doctors and nurses on staff. But why would it need to be, since Heartbeat isn’t in the extermination business, like Planned Terminex.

I don’t think a geyser of money from an untapped abortion supporting target market is going to be a problem for “Planned Parenthood,” the proposed beneficiary of the “Choose Death” plate.

Currently Virginia is the 24th state to offer a “Choose Life” plate. Since 2000, 520,000 of the plates have been sold nationwide, generating $11 million for pro–life crisis pregnancy centers, adoption services and maternity homes.

A mere four states offer a “Choose Death” plate and in Pennsylvania, one of the four, there are only 22 active plates. In Hawaii, the first state to offer the “Respect Choice” plate, a lack of consumer interest may cancel the program entirely.

Which shows that even in a highly dilute form, pro–abortion sentiment is not one with which the average driver wants to be associated. Here in the Commonwealth, only 400 drivers expressed an interest in the plate — a scant 50 over the minimum necessary.

One of the factors complicating passage of the bill approving the plate is the fact the money, assuming NARAL can recruit 1,001 “progressives” who want to fly the abortion flag on their auto, will go to “Planned Parenthood” an abortion mill that many Republican members of the legislature refuse to fund.

And they have a good point. If the slogan is “Respect Choice” why not send the money to an organization that offers more than one option?

About the Author

Michael R Shannon is convinced the best job he ever had was as an editorial page columnist with The Dallas Morning News, because they paid him to read the newspaper. (Previously he had been doing it for free and paying for the privilege.)

Unfortunately, it didn’t last because at the time Shannon was a ‘moderate Democrat’ writing for a conservative paper. Years later he still couldn’t write for the News since he is now a conservative and the paper is liberal.

Shannon founded MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations, a political media and public relations firm. First working exclusively for Democrats, then as he saw the error of his ways, changing parties and working with conservatives and Republicans.

He has produced election and award–winning television, radio, direct mail and newspaper advertising in over 70 elections on three continents and a handful of islands.

He is a popular speaker and recognized as an expert on message development and political advertising and communication. Shannon also has extensive crisis communication experience and has conducted public advocacy campaigns and media training. Shannon teaches these and other courses for the National Federation of Republican Women, The University of Tennessee – Chattanooga Command College, The University of Virginia's Sorensen Institute, the American Medical Association PAC, Capitol.Net, The Police/Fire Labor Institute, Bulldog Reporter’s Media Relations Summit and The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Shannon is a regular speaker on political commercials, crisis communication and public relations for Campaigns & Elections. He has also addressed the National League of Cities, conducted seminars for Information Management and The University of Arkansas – Little Rock and performed as the keynote speaker for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

His client list includes the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the United National Congress in Trinidad & Tobago — where he helped elect the first female Prime Minister in history — and The Israel Project in Israel. Shannon has worked with Unia Wolnosci in Poland, Prime Minister Lester Bird of Antigua & Barbados, Project Venezuela in Venezuela and Opposition Leader David Thompson of Barbados. He has also done training for the Liberal Party national convention in Canada, with various parties in Croatia and Bosnia for NDI and in Romania for the Partnership for International Education & Training. In the US Shannon has done training for the American Medical Association, the American Heart Assn., the Ohio & Michigan Education Assns., the Texas Medical Association and the League of Women Voters.

Shannon is a multiple first place winner in the American Assn. of Political Consultant's Pollie awards. Shannon won back–to–back first place Silver Microphone Awards for best radio commercial and best radio campaign. He is also a three–time winner of the prestigious Gold statue at the Houston International Film Festival.

He can be reached at Michael-Shannon@comcast.net

Table of Contents

Copyright

Preface

Secular Politics & the Believer

Jesus the Liberal Democrat

Occupying the Lunatic Fringe

Richmond Fed: Letting Its Glee Flag Fly

What Is it About ‘Stereotype’ that the Tea Party Doesn’t Understand?

Sudden Jihad Syndrome Outbreak in Cairo & Libya

Finally a Democrat on the Right Side of Taxes

Time for a Rest Stop on the Road to Mideast Peace

Christian Draftees in the Culture War

Chick–fil–A: Fast food, Faster Hate

Conservative Pacifists in the Culture War

Conservative Pacifists in the Culture War Pt. II

Evangelicals Flying Blind

Why Doesn’t George Zimmerman Mind His Own Business?

Too Many Battles, Not Enough Bible

Parody

Kermit’s Lament

Charlie Brown for Governor

Evangelicals Swing Both Ways on Social Issues

The First Church of Druidical Science

Death Is Cheapened in VA

Two Grooms Does Not a Marriage Make

Blindsided

A Ten Commandments Scorecard

Christians as Strange Life Form

Jesus, Another Innocent Man Wrongly Convicted

Imagine. No Religion, Too

Cathedral of Can’t We All Get Along

Searching for the ‘Moderate’ Christian

Life Is a Better Choice

A Newton for Our Time

You Can’t Be a Little Bit ‘Private’

“Choose Electrolux” Plate Available Soon

About the Author