6.24.2007 | "Have You Prayed for bin Laden Today?"

One Brother Andrew is a piece of work, when he challenges Christians to forgive Muslim terrorists, for the stated reason "We forgive you Muslims because Jesus forgave us." This interesting take on forgiveness may be found at Christianity Today. Andrew appears to be one whose got dhimmitude down to a science. In English we might call this appeasement.

Since Andrew invokes the name of our Savior in his confusion, it is mighty, mighty offensive. His chief offense is ignoring that Jesus, with God from the beginning, is very much part and parcel of the "God of revenge" -- a straw man (straw god?) who never, ever existed in either the Old or New Testaments.

God is God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit: Three in One. God never takes "revenge." He does cause death and destruction to rain on those who deny Him; to further salvation History through Israel. Just ask the Egyptians under Pharaoh or the late citizens of Ai.

God also will judge, and judge harshly, those who reject Him, and who persist in their sins. Likewise Jesus has also promised to return in glory, and, as the creedal statement goes, "judge the living and the dead." And this is where this Andrew fella forgets a basic Gospel lesson: Jesus will, indeed, forgive us, "seventy times seven" if we repent of our sins.

If we repent of our sins; and this is where Muslims who promise death and destruction to the Jews or other "infidels" will fail to achieve God's forgiveness -- if they do not repent of their sin of killing innocents. A little Gospel message to assert the rock solid truth of this? It's the story of the adulterous woman about to be stoned to death. Jesus, of course, forgives the woman, but with one condition: "...and from now on sin no more" (John 8:11).

Andrew, and others who think that it's a one-way street with Jesus and the Father: all soft forgiveness, never mind the sin part. That's just sooo Old Testament...

It's no wonder that one of his terrorist hosts said to him, "Andrew, there will always be a place for Christians like you." Perhaps not where Brother Andrew might like, after he is called before the throne...

6.23.2007 | "reparations"

Christian charity prevents me from writing the adjective that first came to mind when I read the following paragraph from, who else, an Episcopal priest:

My prescription for a way out, I freely admit, is based on policy considerations, not necessarily a moral compass. My sense is that the best -- or rather, the least-damaging -- course would be to initiate a gradual pullout of U.S. forces, to be replaced by an international force. The United States would be morally obligated, in my judgment, to finance these forces as well as to pay reparations to the people of Iraq. (emphasis added)

Now, this is not exactly surprising, had it come from a known Nutroots supporter of Dennis Kucinich (well, we can't rule out that this priest is one such...). But this particular bit of lefty wisdom was featured in the "On Faith" section of the WaPo.

The perspectives displayed at "On Faith" are usually, though not exclusively, from the liberal side of the faith spectrum. This one seems to have been crafted from the Sean Penn School for Idiotarians. The "school" was sent up by Trey Parker and Matt Stone as shown in the graphic; the Hollywood branch is the Film Actors Guild (F.A.G.) and one of its underpinnings is that America is the source of all bad things.

The curious notion is that, after expending our blood and treasure to liberate Iraq from a genocidal dictator, we, somehow, owe the Iraqi people "reparations." This is allowing hatred of a failed American policy, if not actual hatred of America, to blind one to some truths.

The first truth is that we are not responsible for over a thousand years on enmity between Sunnis and Shiites, who are now busy as little beavers -- beavers with AK-47s and suicide bombers. The second truth is that we have invested billions of our tax dollars in repairing Iraq, in building roads, schools, hospitals, even mosques. The third truth is that Iraqis are now free to choose their own destiny, or will be after we leave. The fourth truth is that were we to leave today, Iraq would descend into an even bloodier chaos. Many, many more Muslims would die at the hands of their brother Muslims.

If any reparations are owed, it is to those families who have lost loved ones in defending a people, the Iraqis, who can't save themselves. This Episcopal priest is, shall we gently say, an idiot. And that's as gentle as I can be.

Last point: whether or not this priest is an idiot, one must wonder why something he admits is "based on policy considerations, not necessarily a moral compass" appears in the On Faith section. You don't suppose it reflects any bias on the part of the WaPo, do you?

5.23.2007 | How the mighty have fallen

"And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and Jonathan his son..." This, from 2 Samuel 17, describes David's great sorrow at the evil which had overtaken Saul. This is the passage that occurred to me as I read this account of two former stalwarts of human rights: the American Civil Liberties Union, and Amnesty International.

On the ACLU, we've got, from the Wall Street Journal, the sadly accurate headline, "The American Liberal Liberties Union". The thesis? The ACLU tends to ignore cases where it disapproves of the content of the speech. And, of course, like all good multi-cultis, weigh in with vigor whenever the rights of Muslims to blow us up in the name of the Religion of Peace whenever there is "hate speech" about.

For the ACLU, "hate speech" may best be translated as: "Say nothing that even remotely criticizes Muslims, members of other approved minority groups, or the unfettered 'right' of a woman to kill her unborn child." As for the rights of Christians to proclaim our views? Fugeddaboutit.

Then there are the pro-terrorists over at Amnesty International. If a Jew in Israel looks cockeyed at an Arab terrorist, that's a human rights violation. If the Arab blows up a pizzeria or a rocket kills an innocent woman (as happened just this morning, thanks to the terrorists of Hamas), well, those poor Arabs are freedom fighters.

The story is told in this New York Sun opinion piece. An objective man might think that Israel, with a robust, functioning democracy, complete with the rule of law, is somewhat better than places where you can be killed for being a Jew or Christian. You might think this; you'd be wrong if you were only to read what AI puts out.

By way of example, from the Sun article:

...in 2006, Amnesty singled out Israel for condemnation of human rights to a far greater extent than Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and other chronic abusers of human rights.

This kind of a double standard might be called anti-Semitism, but then Amnesty also is fierce in the protection of any terrorist who has been taken off the jihadi rolls and given that life of tropical ease at Gitmo.

The ACLU, Amnesty International, and others of that ilk might be only annoyances. But they reflect a dangerous mindset in the West: America, Israel, believing Christians, Jews, those in favor of actual free speech and civil liberties for all, must be put in their place. And actual enemies of freedom, who inhabit much of the Muslim world, must be treated with kid gloves lest they take offense.

4.30.2007 | Not too much faith, however

As reported in the Washington Post, This from an academic who studies the role of faith in the public square: "We want people of faith, but we don't want them making decisions based on their faith." The issue at hand is the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the federal law banning partial-birth abortions.

Did you know that all five of the justices who formed the majority are...Catholic. Oh my God. Where's Guy Fawkes when you need some papists to blame for everything? The Post article asks, "Is it significant that the five Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold the federal ban on a controversial abortion procedure also happen to be the court's Roman Catholics?" It then goes on to report on several idiotarians-cum-bigots on the matter.

The article, surprisingly for the WaPo, actually sheds light on the anti-Catholic (anti-religious, actually) bigotry so prevalent among the abortion-on-demand left. What one academic (Stone, University of Chicago) wrote is illuminating:

What then explains this decision? Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic. The four justices who are either Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out...

[In finding that there was a moral reason for upholding the ban, Stone added, the majority failed] to respect the fundamental difference between religious belief and morality.

Well spoken, for someone who appears to know nothing about religion as actually practiced in the United States. I have to assume that Stone is an atheist, or, perhaps, attends a feel-good church or synagogue from which sins have been banished, and all are welcome and automatically forgiven.

It is mortifying to have to point this out, Mr. Stone, but from whence do you suppose morality comes? It is not necessarily Catholic (or Protestant or Jewish), but morality comes to our society from one essential source: religion. Not any particular denomination or liturgy. Rather, from the Bible. The Bible, that is, that is essentially the same (notwithstanding the Apocrypha, which don't alter the basic truths on morality) whether used by Catholics, Anglicans, or Protestants. And Jews, of course, share the same Hebrew Scriptures, and if one just wished to stop there one would still have the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) and love thy neighbor as thyself (Leviticus 19:18). Pretty firm foundation for morality; At least Jesus seems to have thought so...

One may argue as to whether non-Christian societies have the same morality, but whether they do is besides the point. Our morality happens to come from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Old, and New Testaments.

The notion that five justices of the Supreme Court are Catholic, and thus their opinions must not reflect the moral teachings of Roman Catholicism is bigoted. And should not be tolerated on the left, or on the right.

1.03.2007 | Now that's abuse

It is not hard to know which side the ACLU is on: they're more concerned that jihadi warriors not be offended than we obtain intelligence to prevent further deaths of Americans. What is puzzling, however, are the lengths to which our own government wastes our money investigating such concerns.

For reasons that should by now not need to be stated, any time some douchbag of an Islamist terrorist at Gitmo is "offended", it becomes front-page news in our mainstream media. Today's front-page story in the WaPo is typical. It relates, among other things,

FBI agents witnessed possible mistreatment of the Koran at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including at least one instance in which an interrogator squatted over Islam's holy text in an apparent attempt to offend a captive, according to bureau documents released yesterday.

In October 2002, a Marine captain allegedly squatted over a copy of the Koran during intensive questioning of a Muslim prisoner, who was "incensed" by the tactic, according to an FBI agent.

So. Here we are, attempting to prevent these terrorists from killing us, from beheading our journalists, from mistreating women, from stoning homosexuals to death, and some of us are concerned that they become "incensed?" Boo. Hoo. They want to kill us; the ACLU doesn't want them to become upset.

As for the tactics using the "holy" Koran, well, that book is full of lies, and features, among other things, the command that infidels be converted or killed. Well, huff the multicultis, so too does the Bible. Look at all that smiting of those who a) don't follow God's commandments, or, b) get in the way of God's chosen people.

Perhaps this is so. But while Christians are told by Jesus to go forth and "baptize all nations," we are also told to pray for our enemies, not kill them. Killing aside, it gets into really foul abuse territory:

Some previously reported tactics mentioned in the new documents include wrapping a prisoner in an Israeli flag, subjecting others to extreme heat and cold, and aggressively using strobe lights on others.

Wrapping a prisoner in an Israeli flag. Oh, the humanity. This is wrong, wrong I say -- It demeans the flag of a staunch ally in the war on terror, and insults Jews.

But the ACLU doesn't give a rat's sphincter about that, now, do they?