"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other."
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) “The Contest in America.” Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Volume 24, Issue 143, page 683-684. Harper & Bros., New York, April 1862.
Novelist Sara Maitland coined the term “competitive vulnerability” to describe those who believe their pain must be bigger than that of others so that they achieve a moral high-ground or greater voice or more grievances to be redressed.
There's a problem here - especially for people that are working to be pastors: If all I'm looking for in your hurt is to see your bet and raise it, I'm looking at it the wrong way. Sadly, this is all too often the tactic taken in church disagreements.
Abraham Maslow once said, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. " Mainline seminaries have sold out to the "oppression / patriarchy / issues" ticket, and are creating ordinands that are incapable of reflecting on ethical, theological, biblical, or political issues outside of that framework. And the people (parishioners & clergy) are poorer for it.
President Obama began his visit to China with an exhortation to free up censorship and allow the citizenry to question and criticize their government without fear of reprisal.
President Barack Obama pointedly nudged China on Monday to stop censoring Internet access, offering an animated defense of the tool that helped him win the White House and suggesting Beijing need not fear a little criticism.
Yeah. Ask Fox News how well Obama takes a little criticism. Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, was interviewed last month and said: “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” (Source: NYT)
It was a delicately balanced message and Obama couched his admonitions with words calling for cooperation, heavy with praise and American humility.
Our country needs to apologize to China? When did that happen? We've stood up for their freedom for 70 years! And our economies energize each other, raising the standard of living for both countries.
"I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable," Obama told students during his first-ever trip to China. "They can begin to think for themselves."
I'm in a conundrum. I have no idea which government snitch line I should report this to. - should I report this quote to fishy@whitehouse.gov or flag@whitehouse.gov? I just can't decide which one best holds the populace accountable to the government. OOOPS! I meant that the government is accountable to the people.
KINGSTON, Ontario: Police say they are investigating whether the soakings of three teenage sisters and a 50-year-old woman found in a car in a church parking lot last month were an "honor christening" by relatives.
Kingston Police Chief Stephen Tanner said Thursday a father, his wife and their son are charged with four counts of first-degree watering.
The three sisters and the man's first wife were found in the car in the Rideau Canal near Kingston, Ontario on June 30.
Tanner said one overseas family member believes it could be an "honor christening." Experts say such baptisms are still accepted among some Christians.
The family, originally from Shrewesbury, England spent 15 years in London before moving to Montreal two years ago.
The accused are Jeremy Upton, his wife Valerie and his 18-year-old son Ashley.
Mr. Upton had told police the baptisms occurred as the family was headed home after vacationing in Niagara Falls and had stopped for the night at a Kingston hotel.
He said the family was traveling in two cars and that he awoke to find one car missing. He reported the car missing to police and said his eldest daughter was known to take the family car without permission or a licence.
Police said their investigation proved that allegation to be false, and that in fact all three accused had operated the vehicle that wound up parked near a church.
"All shared the rights within our great country to live without fear, to enjoy safety and freedom ... and yet had their coifs ruined by members of their own family," Tanner said.
The victims are Meredith, 19, Lilly, 17, and Gwynneth, 13, along with Susan Epston.
Both parents described the eldest, Meredith, as a rebellious and secular young woman.
(source and another) I just "christofascianized" the regular practice for our children and placed it on the story of Islamic "Honor Killings" happening in increasingly secularized western democracies. Some people want to pretend that all religious extremism is the same, and that Christianity has no claim of better behavior in the modern world than any other religion. They assure us that this has nothing to do with the Muslim religion.
Amin Muhammad, a Memorial University expert who is preparing a paper on the topic for the federal Justice Department, says honour killing is not religiously motivated.
"Nothing in the Muslim religion would justify this. Nothing in any religion would justify this," he said. "It's based on personal agendas, personal egos, personal mindsets."
Sure...you see it all the time in Christian households.
The practice dates back hundreds of years to rural and tribal areas of Pakistan and is generally committed by family members against women who have engaged in illicit pre-marital or extramarital relations. In some cases, it can even target victims of sexual assault.
Right. You know...some religions that emphasize spreading the Love of God stamped that out of their rural tribal life a long time ago.
A man who feels such an act has dishonoured the family will kill the woman in question as a means of restoring that honour. Motives for honour killing, however, have started to expand beyond female adultery, targeting women for enjoying basic freedoms, Mr. Muhammad said.
Funny...most Christian parents in similar settings decide to help their daughters enter the bonds of holy matrimony instead. I guess these are equivalent...who am I to judge, right?
"In some cases, they just don't want the woman to have the liberty to choose her own lifestyle," he said.
The practice exemplifies a deeply entrenched gender bias against women, said Angela Henderson, an expert on domestic violence at the University of British Columbia. In most cases, men who similarly breach cultural norms tend to be subjected to less severe punishments.
Right...it's all about gender bias, which is why all those mouth-breathing, anti-feminist conservatoid Christian haters in the Southern Baptist Convention are doing it.
You know...it just might have to do with the fact that the religions of the world demand sacrifice and blood atonement for sin, and Christianity has already finished that in the work of Christ. You think?
But the intense public spotlight that follows killings -- which often focuses on the perceived clash between Western and Middle Eastern values -- deflects attention from a much larger issue, she said. "I don't think you can [simply] put it down to culture," Ms. Henderson said. "Eleven per cent of women can expect to experience some form of violence from somebody they know in their lifetime ... it's about power and control, a way of enforcing what a man thinks a woman should be doing."
Face it, folks...secularism isn't going to be able to stand up to the mind virus of Islamic extremism. Look at how we've bought into the narcissistic apocalypticism of anthropogenic global warming. From a purely secular point of view, Christianity serves as a mild inoculation against such radicalism - and has a proven history of transforming societies towards democracy and improving the lot of women.
On this day, in 1215, King John of England agreed to pave the path to constitutional monarchy. The Magna Carta ensured that the king (and his descendents, in perpetuity) would be bound by laws, and that it would his job to uphold the rights of the nobles and freemen who forced him into the pact.
This is significant because in our country, there is a challenge to individual freedoms in the name of communal values. The King was seen as the embodiment of his community - soil and blood. When he spoke, England spoke. In our country, the elected government is seen as the voice of the people. If the government is not doing it's job (i.e., limiting its power to the constitutionally prescribed work and defending the individual liberties of the people), we dissolve into power-hungry focus groups - all trying to out-vote our out-appoint one another.
Similarly today, a tyrant named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is being challenged to hear the voice of his people. It's clear that some sort of election rigging occurred in order for him to declare a landslide victory.
Christians, I urge you to pray for a peaceful resolution to this crisis. We in America have been lulled into thinking that a vote makes democracy. It doesn't...it is able to make ochlocracy, but a democracy can only be realized when there is a true concern for individual liberties on the part of both the powers and the people. Liberty means freedom to succeed and freedom to fail.
May the people of Iran receive justice and liberty, which is their birthright as bearers of the imago dei.
May Americans revitalize their liberties, for which our forefathers bled and died (and sweated and toiled).
You might have seen the political hit piece that is passing as the DHS's report on "Right Wing Extremism." If not, Michelle Malkin is commenting on it with great acumen. All I have to say is this:
McCarthyism is McCarthyism - no matter which side is doing it.
The liberties we enjoy in a democracy are inseparable from freedom of expression. The exercise of that freedom makes demands on us all. Nowhere are those demands more highly charged than where religious groupings believe their faith has been insulted.
Those sections of society that are unable to tease out the relationship between freedom of expression and self-restraint, or to understand that, when offence is given, challenge — rather than violence or prohibition — should be the response, pose a threat to the fabric of a democratic state.
FREEDOM of expression is a dearly bought and cherished attribute of democracy. Respect and consideration for the sensibilities of others should be equally valued. The freedom to hold an opinion does not confer the right to express it regardless of context. Neither does personal or collective offence necessarily license prohibition of offending material.
There is no right to be protected from offence, but there is a right — even a duty — to engage in debate, and thus to challenge the giver of offence. It is through debate that we learn what may be tolerated and what must be proscribed. Violence of speech or action short-circuits this civilised usage, and gives rise to oppression, fear, and resentment.
Prohibition has reinforced the idea that violent protest is the only response to falsehood....defamation must be met with dialogue. Neither tolerance nor self-restraint is learned under the rule of the censor.
Prohibition of free speech isn't as far as you think. In seminary, a friend was called into the dean's office for using biblical language about God - because some people found it offensive. You can't imagine the opprobrium - the violent political moves and abuses of professorial power - that is heaped on anyone who would limit feminine universals in language...but masculinity is ruled right out. It's tragic because in losing God's masculinity we lose God's transcendence...and we are placed on the road to paganism and panentheism.
Okay...I can be sacrilegious sometimes. And when I saw this, I snickered pretty hard.
Then I started theologizing and realized that there was a deeper point to be grasped. They got the wrong person of the Trinity.
For you non pop-culture mavens, the guys at the bottom are the Ghostbusters.
Does your church equivocate on the Trinity? Is worship offered to the Father, in the name of the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit? Or do they take modalist language like "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer"? Is it worth losing the covenant-keeping God revealed in the Scriptures and Christ Jesus for the non-gendered bland deity of "God"* or "Holy One"*?
*(Biblical names, no doubt - but reflective of a paucity of uses of Scripturally shaped - and even mandated, in the Baptismal Formula from Christ & the Apostles - language used in the Bible.)
Our first black president (sorry, Bill) is also the first sitting president to appear on a late night tv show. There he was - the most powerful human being in the world - in the same seat occupied by such luminaries as Britney Spears, Carrot Top, and so many more, when he made a really good joke:
Leno: Now, are they going to put a basketball — I imagine the bowling alley has been just burned and closed down.
President Obama: No, no. I have been practicing all — (laughter.)
Leno: Really? Really?
President Obama: I bowled a 129. (Laughter and applause.)
Leno: No, that’s very good. Yes. That’s very good, Mr. President.
President Obama: It’s like — it was like Special Olympics, or something. (Laughter.)
It was a really funny joke, and anybody who complains about it is just a dour stick in the mud who hates the idea of a black president.
Obama called Special Olympics Chairman Timothy Shriver after the show to apologize and to express his admiration for the organization. Shriver accepted the apology and later said he hoped the gaffe would serve as an opportunity to knock down myths about people with disabilities.
The most popular president in recent history (at least the past 6 years) goes in front of a national audience and makes a forgettable joke that really shouldn’t have offended anybody, but he shows just how noble and sensitive he is by promptly apologizing.
Like the media, we should all accept his heartfelt apology without question.
Does anybody remember the Don Imus controversy? Here's what Junior Senator Obama had to say about that:
“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude…”
“He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women — who I hope will be athletes — that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It’s one that I’m not interested in supporting.”
Though every major presidential candidate has decried the racist remarks, Obama is the first one to say Imus should lose his job for them.
I'm just trying to keep this straight - it's okay to make fun of the differently abled because you're hoping that your abortion policies will keep them from every being a political reality...is that it? After all, we all know how sensitive the Left is to the issue of Trisomy 21.
What's that, Mr. President? I can't hear you over your derisive sneer and voting record.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Last Spring, a seminary friend of mine was invoking his privilege as a senior to give one sermon at the midweek chapel service. The senior sermon serves as an opportunity to share something of your faith with the community that, for two or more years, has been part of shaping that very faith. There are basic, "broad middle" sermons. Some sermons that question the person's call after 2.5 years of education. Many sermons that criticize the Bush administration. And a plethora of GLBT, Social Justice, or other standard Christian Left sermons. Fine and dandy.
But my friend was called in to the dean's office. His crime? He dared to use masculine pronouns and speak of God the Father. Apparently, inclusive language isn't meant to include half of the population.
Don't get me wrong. Inclusive language in regards to humans is a good thing (though it can make for poor writing in the hands of less-skilled writers). It's a seminary policy to use inclusive language.
A lot of feminist and post-modernist theologians talk about how people have felt excluded by masculine god-talk. (Which, let's be clear, is MASCULINE, but not necessarily MALE.) They want to jettison 4,000 years of linguistic reflection on the basis of 40-60 years of empowerment talk. But I don't think they've thought through all the implications. They can tell you why they don't want masculine god-talk, but have a harder time justifying the alternative they propose.
Do you know why masculine god-talk is important? Please feel free to use the comments section to elucidate. And stay tuned...the vicar is about to stir things up.
Does it bother anyone else that the government now holds close to 90% of all mortgages? I refer, of course, to the $200 billion dollar bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Before bailing out mortgage companies, the United States government had direct ownership of nearly 30% of its total territory. These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture). They are managed by different administrations, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority. This map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government. The top 10 list of states with the highest percentage of federally owned land looks like this:
Nevada84.5%
Alaska69.1%
Utah57.4%
Oregon53.1%
Idaho50.2%
Arizona48.1%
California45.3%
Wyoming42.3%
New Mexico41.8%
Colorado36.6%
Notable is that all these states are in the West (except Alaska, which strictly speaking is also a western state, albeit northwestern). Also notable is the contrast between the highest and the lowest percentages of federal land ownership. The US government owns a whopping 84.5% of Nevada, but only a puny 0.4% of Rhode Island and Connecticut. The lowest-percentage states are mainly in the East, but some are also in the Midwest and in the South:
Connecticut0.4%
Rhode Island0.4%
Iowa0.8%
New York0.8%
Maine1.1%
Kansas1.2%
Nebraska 1.4%
Alabama 1.6%
Ohio 1.7%
Illinois 1.8%
Even the 10th place is still below the two percent mark.
Where's that right to private property when you need it, if the government can now exercise fiscal controls to get you out of your house WITHOUT having to go through eminent domain payments?
Now Mr. Fowler is surely an intellectual powerhouse to be reckoned with - as a quick review of his website will show. He also is a self-published author of Reconciliation with the G.O.A.T., God of All Truth. (Please, no goatse jokes.) And - tremble, O Zondervan and Nelson - he's representing himself in court. (I don't know why: the ACLU, GLAAD, GLF, GMAD, and others would probably provide pro bono homo legal counsel.) I'm sure that it's tort claims like these that our founding fathers intended to take up the time of the justice system.
Also, would anybody be interested in helping some death-row murders file a tort against God and the Bible publishers for that whole killing / murder confusion in the Decalogue?
We're getting closer. When we misuse rhetoric to make someone's access to wedding photographers a HUMAN RIGHT, we lose sight of real rights (and our attendant responsibilities).
More on Pete Schweizer's Makers and Takers that explodes the myths of liberalism as the path to enlightened compassion.
Kengor: I suppose that of all the charges against liberals in the subtitle, the one that liberals will probably protest most vehemently is the point on materialism. And in their defense, Peter, I must say that I’ve seen some pretty darned materialistic conservatives.
Schweizer: Well remember, in all of this we are talking about tendencies. Not all conservatives are one way and not all liberals are the other. That said, the research really does indicate that liberals value money more than conservatives. After health, they are more likely to consider it the most important thing in their life. And they are more likely to say that there is no wrong way to make money. I think this actually makes sense when you look at modern liberalism. After all, what do liberals use as their measure of justice and equality? Income, or money! This is the reason I believe that modern liberals are also much more likely to be envious of other peoples’ success. They are constantly looking at the money yardstick.
This strikes me as consistent with my own experience. In seminary, we would do all of these consciousness exercises that were meant to exorcise our consciences of racism. It always focused on outcomes, with little attention being given to the complex of behaviors that served to synergize the admittedly bad hand given to many people. And it always seemed to come down to a "that's not fair" trump...as if equality of possessions were a Biblical value.
As a side note, while the libs were talking about racial justice, they never seemed to hang out with the black folks on campus. Sure...go to a rally,sign a petition, start an initiative, have a discussion, etc...but invite them over for dinner? My wife and I made it a point of our ministry to try to cook once for everyone who moved onto campus (and for many who never did). So many of the black single mothers were shocked that we would invite them to our homes - not only because my reputation preceded me, but also because no one had done this for them. They would tell me about how lonely they felt on campus because everyone seemed to be cheering them on from the bleachers, but no one got down to run beside them. A food pantry would be opened, monies would be set aside, but to actually sit down with them and eat - or listen to their struggles just seemed too much.
It is a shame that this should happen in any church setting - liberal or conservative. We've erected a barrier of professionalism that keeps us from getting our hands dirty. Then we abandon others through rhetoric of the self-determination and autonomy and anti-colonial / patronization need to leave them in squalor until some government comes along to give folks help they need. But I'll note this as well - at the more conservative (and thus, presumably, racist, bigoted, exclusionary, etc.) seminary across the street there was always a healthy interaction between racial ethnic groups. People sat together in the cafeteria with their Bibles open or played frisbee on the lawn. There were more per capita, as well. Funny how that "unity in Christ" thing trumps the pathetic results of group politics.
Kengor: How does the giving of Barack Obama measure up to, say, George W. Bush, or the nefarious Dick Cheney?
Schweizer: Obama, like John Kerry or Al Gore, has traditionally given a very small portion of his income to charity, approximately 1 percent. Bush gives 10 percent or more on a regular basis. In 2005, Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity—and got criticized for it! I also went back and looked at the numbers for Ronald Reagan and FDR. Reagan gave nearly twice as much as FDR did during the height of the Great Depression.
Kengor: But doesn’t Obama care more than Dick Cheney?
Schweizer: Supposedly. At least that is what he tells us. And liberals tell us that in surveys, too. They are much more likely to say that they “feel close” to the poor. The problem is it kind of ends at the feeling part.
Again, backed up in my own experience - but I'm glad (if that's even the right word) to see that it generalizes to the larger population. I think James had something to say about this, as well... It looks like activism / advocacy without works (personal integration of this ideal) is also dead.
Keep an eye on the upcoming SCOTUS decision in DC vs. Heller. It's going to decide whether the US Constitution grants rights to individuals, or only collectively. It's also going to decide whether any subordinate judicatory can abridge those rights.
The issues involved are much bigger than the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. But the longer I live, the more I see that our 1st Amendment rights - all of our rights - are based on our ability to thwart those who would take those rights away from us without just cause. Frankly, I'd rather have a government afraid of its citizenry than the obverse.
A little background: I'm still on the communitymail email list for LPTS. It's an email listserv where people can announce general interest items. I've had some "adventures" on there in the past, but things got ugly when folks wanted to paint me as the mouth-breathing conservative homophobic woman-beater instead of make an intelligent rebuttal. I generally leave it alone, but when the following came along...well...I couldn't hold back.
Let me set it up: LPTS hosts several blood drives throughout the year. There's always a handful of international students or folks who've gone on mission trips to parts of the world that disqualify them from giving blood. With some recent loosening of restrictions on foreign travel, the office staff person that coordinates these donations sent out a helpful email reminding people to reconsider whether or not they are newly eligible. In response to that information, an student demagogue wrote the following:*
I find it somewhat disturbing that we don't make some statement expressing our concern that (as far as I can see in this email) homosexuals are still summarily excluded from eligibility to donate.
To which I responded, as pastorally as I could:
I find it somewhat comforting that - when you graduate - you're "MD" will only stand for Master of Divinity, not Medical Doctor.
Do you seriously believe that this decision is based on homophobia, heterosexism, or anything other than rational medical science?
Stick to exegesis, and leave the epidemiology to competent critics.
(BTW, "homosexuals" aren't excluded - only men who've actually had sex with another man since 1977. That means a heterosexual who was raped in 1983 isn't eligible but a 20 yr old homosexual who has been chaste is eligible, as would be all lesbians - assuming no other risk factors.)
Abraham Maslow once said, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. " Mainline seminaries have sold out to the "oppression / patriarchy / issues" ticket, and are creating ordinands that are incapable of reflecting on ethical, theological, biblical, or political issues outside of that framework. And we're the poorer for it.
* Names have been changed to protect the willfully stupid.
PS - This is the kind of stuff that made my CPM say "CPE will cure him!"
Update! Touchy non-celibate gay male responds:
[Student demagogue] was referring to the fact that gay men are not allowed to donate blood. The list includes people who are now allowed to donate who previously were not allowed to do so. He was commenting on the fact that gay men SHOULD be on that list but ARE NOT on that list. I guess the tests they run on the blood doesn't work for queer blood, that is the only reason that I can figure out as to why gay men are still excluded.
Update part deux: I've been reported to the dean of students. shudder What is it about those Holston boys that makes'em so reportable? Anyway, it's not the first time it's happened. It will probably be the last, as I'm moving away (into my first home!) in about a month.
Traditional Anglicanism that is robustly orthodox is alive in Central Kentucky! We are gathering people who need to be welcomed by the Church of Christ, loved in the name of Christ, taught the Word of Christ, and fed on the Most Precious Body & Blood of Christ!
A confessional Christian ruminates on life. While "adiaphora" refers to "things indifferent" to orthodox Christianity, it also sums up much of the mainline churches attitudes of indifference to the heresy in her ranks (and by "rank" I mean the positively mephitic aroma!).
Oh, and if you post anonymously, make sure you identify yourself - or at least keep it on target. Don't expect me to post your incognito invective. If that's your bag, get your own blog.
I welcome disagreement. Say what you will, but back it up. I'm from Dixie - not ipse dixit!
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other."
