Monday, February 26, 2007

The Seventh Sola Returns March 12 - Lord Willing

Saturday, February 24, 2007

I interrupt my posting break for the following...we are in the midst of a blizzard here. Literally. In honor of that..I post the following lyrics..a song I played several times years ago when I was a lowly radio DJ...

Artist/Band: Reeves Jim
Lyrics for Song: The Blizzard
Lyrics for Album: The Essential Jim Reeves

There's a blizzard comin' on how I'm wishin' I was home
For my pony's lame and he can't hardly stand
Listen to that northern sigh if we don't get home we'll die
But it's only seven miles to Mary Anne it's only seven miles to Mary Anne
You can bet we're on her mind for it's nearly suppertime
And I'll bet there's hot biscuits in the pan
Lord my hands feel like they're froze and there's a numbness in my toes
But it's only five more miles to Mary Anne it's only five more miles to Mary Anne
That wind's howlin' and it seems mighty like a woman's screams
And we'd best be movin' faster if we can
Dan just think about that barn with that hay so soft and warm
For it's only three more miles to Mary Anne it's only three more miles to Mary Anne
Dan get up your ornery cuss or you'll be the death of us
I'm so weary but I'll help you if I can
All right Dan perhaps it's best that we'll just stop awhile and rest
For it's still a hundred yards to Mary Anne it's still a hundred yeards to Mary Anne
Late that night the storm was gone and they found him there at dawn
He had made it but he couldn't leave ol' Dan
Yes they found him there on the plains his hands froze to the reins
He was just a hundred yards from Mary Anne
He was just a hundred yards from Mary Anne

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Bad Journalism and Illegal Immigration

I didn't intend to post again until I got back from the Shepherd's Conference, but something happened on Fox News this morning that demands comment.

Geraldo Rivera was guest-hosting on Fox and Friends, and they had a couple of college students on to debate illegal immigration and a game that the College Republicans came up with to provoke debate on the issue, "Find the Illegal Immigrant." Rather than ask questions of the two protagonists and let them answer, Geraldo went off on the Republican student, calling the game (and by implication, the student) racist and comparing him to the Nazis. The hapless kid couldn't get a word in edgewise. On the other hand, the "poor pitiful Hispanic student" was allowed to speak uninterrupted. I fired off the following angry email to Fox and Friends . . .

I don't think I've ever seen more rude, unprofessional
behavior out of a journalist in my life. You ask a
College Republican on your program to discuss the
issue, and then you lace into him, hardly letting him
get a word in edgewise. You call that objective
journalism? Geraldo was really demogoging the issue as
well. The game was intended to call attention to
ILLEGAL immigration, violation of national borders,
illegal activity by businesses knowingly employing
illegals. Only one side of this issue is being heard,
and a college campus is supposedly one where academic
freedom reigns. It is hardly the Nazification of our

If Geraldo has an opinion on this stuff, let him put
it into an editorial. If he was going to be "fair and
balanced," he should have jumped into the Hispanic
guest and asked him "what part of illegal doesn't he

Geraldo's behavior is a classic example of why rational debate is becoming an extinct species in the United States. If they can't intellectionally win the argument, they shout you down and call you names. It is also an example of how journalism has deteriorated. News, fact and opinion have been blurred and journalists have become advocates rather than objective chroniclers of the day's events. Rather than the College Republicans being Nazis, Geraldo's behavior is of a piece with both fascist AND communist ways of humiliating and silencing their opposition.

No one that I know on this issue opposes LEGAL immigration. We object to illegality on all sides, the illegals and the employers who hire them. A nation has the right to govern its borders. Period.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Nope, This One's Worse!

If the last story wasn't enough to rattle your cage, how about this one linked below. New York City politicians wanting to give non-citizens the right to vote.

Has this country totally, finally flipped its collective lid?

New York Post

As an aside, the Seventh Sola is going on a blog break until March 11th. I will be getting ready to attend an out-of-town conference, and my various responsibilities in ministry will demand my full attention until then. So, put a tickle in your files..I will be back eventually.
The Jawdropper of the Week (and it's not even over yet!)

Every now and then, a story comes along that engenders only aghast silence. The link below will take you to one. Normally I get irritated with public libraries because so many seem unconcerned about what ends up in children's hands. Kudos to these librarians for caring. While the word in question might seem relatively innocuous, read between the lines and see the real agenda..pushing the envelope yet again to younger and younger ages. The clinically correct term now will give way later to the vulgar and profane. Give it time.

New York Times

Monday, February 19, 2007

Monday Mini-Rant

I have little time today, but here's my venting for the day on two issues, one a bit on the frivilous side.

First, could we please have some hymns back in the worship service? I don't mind a chorus or two, but most of them are so banal. Hymns are rich with theology. If the style bugs you, go ahead and arrange one with a Beatles backbeat or Pink Floydish keyboard washes. But give me the hymns. I realize that in many churches, asking for a hymn is like going to Castle Dracula and singing "Here Comes the Sun." But to me, repeating a two-line chorus 30 times is like going to a Romper Room screening and calling it the College Bowl.

My second issue isn't spiritual, but recreational. Could we please have some bowling alleys in this country that will put real wood lanes in at refurbishment time rather than following the lemmings to synthetic lanes? Bowling on synthetics is like bowling on countertop. I hate them. Passionately. When the bowling ball hits them, it sounds like someone just cracked their tailbone.

There. I'm done now.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Athanasius Still Speaks

To those who have studied church history, especially the portion dealing with the early church fathers and the heresies they faced, the name of Athanasius stands out strong. Not to say that today's evangelicals will necessarily agree with everything Athanasius wrote, however his bold, fearless stand against the Arian heretics that swept half the church away still inspires to this day. Apologists still quote to one another the famous line, "Athanasius contra mundum," or "Athanasius against the world."

Many of us have been concerned with the heresies promoted by the extremes of the Emergent Church movement. Some pastors and church leaders believe that the Emergent Church movement will die out as quickly as it arose. Some view it as already "passe.' Yet, as Ecclesiastes tells us, there is nothing new under the sun. The errors of the EC are not new, just regurgitated and morphed into new dress. Should our Lord tarry in His coming, they will surface again in new guise. Knowing this is what has led me to read Athanasius again.

I am especially intrigued at the moment by Athanasius' reply to the Arian heretics who insisted that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, backed their false view of Christ being a created being rather than eternal God Himself. Athanasius was incensed by what he considered an insult to the memory of Dionysius. I had to chuckle in reading the preamble to his defense of Dionysius, as his language was rather sharp. When I - and others - have taken on the EC errors, sometimes rather sharply, we have received howls of protest about our supposed "intolerance" and "intemperate tone." Well, take a look at this excerpt from Athanasius himself . . .

"You have been tardy in informing me of the present argument between yourself and the enemies of Christ; for even before your courtesy wrote to me, I had made diligent enquiry, and learnt about the matter of which I heard with pleasure. I approved of the right opinion entertained by your piety concerning our blessed fathers, while on the present occasion I once more recognize the unreasonableness of the Arian madmen. For whereas their heresy has no ground in reason, nor express proof from holy writ, they were always resorting to shameless subterfuges and plausable fallacies. But they have now also ventured to slander the fathers: and this is not inconsistent, but fully of a piece with their perversity. For what marvel is it if men who have presumed to 'take counsel against the Lord and against His Christ,' are also vilifying the blessed Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, as a partisan and accomplice of their own? For if they are pleased to extol a man, for the support of their own heresy, even if they call him blessed, they cast upon him no slight affront, but a great one indeed; just like robbers or men of evil life who, when branded for their own practices, claim sober persons as being of their number, and thus defame their sober character."

This particular letter defending Dionysius' reputation is rather long, but worth reading as there are interesting comparisons to our own day. The EC is enamored of certain early church writers and medieval monastic, mystical practices. But anyone who knows even a little about the patristics realizes that they were not all cut out of the same cloth doctrinally. As Athanasius shows, one can cherrypick things written by an early father and claim that they buttress a position. However, when one looks at their work as a whole, a different picture can emerge (pun intended). One thing I love about Athanasius is his consistent standard pointing to the authority of Scripture to settle theological arguments, instead of the mere opinions of men. And, as it was in the days of Athanasius, a low view of Scripture leads to damnable heresy.

There are many figures of days gone by who I look forward to meeting in eternity. Athanasius is near the top of the list. I hope and pray with all my heart that God will raise up similar lions of the faith today - men who fear God more than men, and who love His Word more than life. I praise God for Athanasius' godly example, and pray that I can emulate it in my own small way.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Moneychangers in the Temple

Doing three posts in one day is unusual for me, but the thought that came to me this afternoon struck me so forcefully that I wanted to share it here before something else drives it out of my mind. I will begin by reviewing a couple of well known Scripture passages.

In Mark 11, the Lord Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the temple. The text says He would not allow them to bring merchandise into the house of worship. Afterward . . . He began to teach and say to them, “Is it not written, ‘MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL THE NATIONS’? But you have made it a ROBBERS’ DEN.”

The Apostle John uses different wording to describe the incident . . . and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.” (John 2:16).

Now, I am sure some of you know where I am going with this. But hear me out (or read me out, more accurately). I fully realize that the Jewish Temple is not the church building, and I know full well that the moneychangers were selling things for sacrifice along with other things. I know that we are not under the Law of Moses. Having said all that, I want to look at the heart of the matter. Please do not charge me with legalism. Read what I am going to say and consider it carefully. I am not a legalist, and I am not hung up on contemporary music, dramas, and other means used sometimes to communicate the Gospel. However, Scripture does impose some regulation on our worship, not to mention the attitude we should have toward the Lord Himself.

I have been increasingly concerned about our attitude toward God, and toward worship of God, when we are all gathered together in assembly. We have exchanged the God who is the Consuming Fire of Hebrews for a jocular God whom we can backslap like a bosum buddy and then slouch in the pew like the best of the slackers. We see all manners of dress and lack thereof. I am not exaggerating on the lack, either. I've seen some on church worship teams dressed so immodestly that it takes the breath away. I've seen jeans cut so low you can see the top half of the gluteus maximus as well as the large tattoo above it. Add to it tops that that barely (no pun intended) cover the breasts. I was horrified, and I am not making any of this up. Worse yet, I have heard the whining of some of these "leaders" after they've been challenged over their mode of dress and manner of conducting themselves on the platform. The usual "they're judging me," Or, "I am free in Christ and I need to be me." Yeah. Right. So the lines in the Bible about modesty are simply put there for entertainment value? I don't think so.

We hear pastors and other church leaders use crude language and even profanity from the pulpits, and then try to defend it when you challenge them on it. I could go on, but you get the idea. Quite frankly, things have gotten out of hand and I'd be embarrassed to invite an unbeliever to some of these so-called churches that resemble Mardi Gras more than the house of the Lord.

If our God is anything, He is consistent. In the Old Testament, He struck people dead for not conducting themselves in the Holy of Holies properly. He refused to allow Moses to enter the promised land because Moses did not . . . treat Me as holy . . . (Deuteronomy 32:51). And contrary to the opinion of some, the same God who is in the New Testament has been known to use a heavy hand when necessary to discipline His people. Remember the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5? They were struck dead for lying to the Holy Spirit and to the church. The whole church was in fear after this event. Who in the church of today is afraid of God? Some ought to be.

When we gather together to worship these days, we can expect outrageous stunts being pulled during worship (ostensibly to illustrate sermons). Today, you can have coffee bars, cafes, trinket stores, even full blown shopping centers doing business while you worship. And this all goes on without anyone batting an eye. For a brief period, I even warmed to the coffee bit and carried a cup with me into the service. Afterward, when I thought about it for a while, I was saddened by my own complacency. I can have coffee after church. I don't need to slurp it while waiting for the communion tray to get to me.

All of this makes me very sad. While some churches and church leaders advocate this stuff out of sheer rebellion against what they perceive as the status quo and hidebound tradition, other churches are doing these things with the best of intentions. They genuinely want to make the church a warm and welcoming place for unbelievers, in hopes they can draw some to Christ. But that is not the purpose of the assembly. That is not the purpose of the Body of Christ gathering together to worship. That is not how the Gospel works. If anything, sinners are supposed to feel UNCOMFORTABLE in their sin and see their need for repentance. Until we recover a biblical understanding of what the church is - as well as what the assembly is supposed to be - we will keep falling for the trendy and becoming effete in the process.

I have read about the church of Laodicea all my life. I never dreamed that I'd be in the middle of it. Father God, please intervene and protect Your remnant.
Update on the Hardaway Kerfuffle

The following open letter to World Net Daily regarding the controversial comments of ex-NBA player Tim Hardaway was so good I am reposting it here. Writer Brian Henson expresses the situation very well. Go to WorldNetDaily to see the original. Here's the URL to the site:

I have spent the last day listening to the fallout of Tim Hardaway's comments regarding homosexual players and people in general. Though his statements were blunt and not nuanced, they substantially reflect the thinking of a sizeable percentage of the American population. The gay advocacy publicity mill has kicked into Overdrive-2 (it's always in "overdrive"), branding a retired basketball player as bigoted and intolerant.

What has happened is this: Homosexuality has become not a part of the individual, but the primary identifier of that individual. In other words, it is "I'm John Amaechi and I'm gay." This will be jammed down the throats of people as it is when most gay celebrities and semi-celebrities "come out." I don't go walking around saying, "I'm BH and I'm Methodist" or "I'm BH and I'm bald." In addition, I certainly don't go on describing, unsolicited, my sexual conquests, lack thereof, or even my opinions of sexual mores. That is best left in the bedroom.

I, by no means, hate gay people. I feel that they have the right to behave as they wish regarding their sexual behavior. I have TOLERANCE of it. That does not mean that I advocate it or worship it. In previous generations, tolerance meant putting up with and accepting behaviors that one didn't like. The liberal wordsmithing machine, however, has restated tolerance as to mean not only accepting, but "honoring behaviors, mores and religions different and opposed to ones own." To not honor these things opens one up to be labeled "intolerant," the worst social crime in post-Christian America.

There has been a strong movement to eliminate "proselytizing" in America. However, this usually applies to Christians and pro-family groups, who are increasingly labeled out of hand as anti-gay groups. Proselytization and evangelism are certainly welcome if you are evangelizing one of three major new religions in this country: Islam, Atheism/Humanism and, yes, Homosexuality.

Note I named it as a religion. It is a primary identifier and idea shaper, and is considered sacred by the movement's supporters, gay and straight alike. If one says anything that is not lionizing of it, they are castigated and blackballed (as Hardaway has been).

Homosexuals are always portrayed as kind, enlightened, sensitive and smart. I'm sure many are. However, any other portrayal would not be tolerated by the Nazis that are at the forefront of the movement. It has become so crazy that they have demanded and received preferences to the point that if anyone does anything criminal against a gay person, the penalties are greater than otherwise, even if the perpetrator has no prior knowledge of the person's homosexuality.

Tim Hardaway played on the Golden State Warriors for years. They are based in the San Francisco Bay Area, the forefront of the gay advocacy movement. Could he have seen many peculiarities and aberrations that shaped his ideas?

Brian Henson
Tim Hardaway and Righteous Hatred

Here we go again! A well known public figure or celebrity goes over the top with his mouth expressing hatred for homosexuals, and the media (plus the usual activists) have a collective epileptic seizure of the left eye. The usual outrage and hectoring against "bigotry," "homophobia," and other perceived evils.

Here's what I've got to say about it. Hardaway is wrong if he harbors true hatred in his heart for anyone as an individual. He was wrong to say what he said in the manner it was said. However, it is NOT wrong to hate an evil or immoral behavior. And THAT is the crux of this issue. The gay activists and their media acolytes have largely succeeded in their drive to have their sexual pecadillos classified in the same manner as one would classify an ethnic minority, with all the attendant rights and privileges. To express disapproval of homosexuality is tantamount to Holocaust denial or siding with the Ku Klux Klan. Excuse me, but since when is immoral, sinful BEHAVIOR and THOUGHT PROCESSES a protected civil right?

More important than anything I say is what God says about the matter. God's inerrant Word calls homosexuality an abomination. Unrepentant homosexuals will NOT inherit the kingdom of God, but will spend eternity separated from God in Hell along with other unrepentant sinners (name your sin, including your own). Deuteronomy expresses it quite forcefully, as does Romans chapter 1 and a host of other Scriptures. That, to me, is the final word on the matter.

I'd love to see someone have the moxie to charge God with a hate crime. I will watch how that unfolds with tremendous interest. I have a pretty good hunch who will win that argument.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Now It's Britney's Turn

Well, after seeing wall-to-wall Anna Nicole 24-7, USA Today (I'll not use my typical epithet for them this time) has a story about the latest antics of another girl out of control - namely Britney Spears. The article is in the "Life" section, and whether the paper realizes it or not, they are again demonstrating both the tragedy and the outrage of these self-centered celebrities.

One ironic part of the article has some people trying to explain Ms. Spears' behavior as trying to drown out "bad" things such as the breakdown of her marriage. Hmm. Let me get this straight. One drowns out "bad" by engaging in bad behavior. Okay. The girl needs "therapy." No, the last thing she needs is psychobabble. A good, sound drubbing with a razor strap would benefit her much more.

It's sad when young girls and older women get the idea in their skulls that acting and dressing like inhabitants of a red light district are somehow attractive. They might attract someone's base, gutter instincts, but to most men with a shred of decency, this behavior engenders the opposite reaction. Personally, I try to stay as far away from cowpies or buffalo chips as possible.

Britney. Paris. Nicole. Name your tragicomic figure. Will they end up dead like Anna Nicole? I hope and pray not. I don't rejoice at the disgrace and self-destruction of these women. It makes me mad. Really mad. When I think of pre-teen girls idolizing and emulating these horrible role models with their parents' approval, I get livid.

The most sad of all is that many churches and Christians have lost their "saltiness." Evangelize these girls with a biblical Gospel? Warn them of an eternity in Hell? That wouldn't be loving.

Tell it to the Judge.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Yet Another Illegal Immigration Outrage

On Fox News this morning, there was a brief clip about the Bank of America being willing to extend credit to anyone whether they had a Social Security number or not. Read that..whether your immigrant status is legal or not. Outrageous, to put it mildly.

Bank of America is not the only business to pull something like this. As far as I am concerned, the CEOs of this bank ought to be held criminally liable. Illegal immigration is against the law, and so is aiding and abetting. Until the individuals responsible for hiring and financing illegal immigration are made to pay a price, this will continue and our country will be increasingly insecure. Unfortunately, they apparently will not be made to pay a price, as politicians are not yet being made to pay a price for closing their eyes to this cancer on the body politic.

I really think one clue to understanding this issue is being able to discern the globalist mindset. The idea of national borders and state economy is anathema to these people. The notion of being an American citizen with American values protecting American interests is seen as somehow outmoded, porochial and even quaint. Anything these people can do to shred the idea of the nation-state will be done. Formerly, it was done under the table, but now they're quite open about it. They're feeling pretty brazen and confident.

The question is, will we as Americans finally wake up and realize that our country is being slowly stolen. This has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. That is a canard and people should stop being intimidated by people who throw this baseless and stupid accusation around. Every country has the right to control its borders and to REGULATE immigration. Uncontrolled immigration will only hurt everyone, and if we have a growing number of people here who do NOT share our national values or interest, those of us who hold America dear will be a minority.

The American experiment is worth saving. But as our Founding Fathers said, we will lose it if we don't take care. It may already be too late.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

The Wages of Sin and Anna Nicole

By now, I imagine many are tired of the non-stop media fixation on the Anna Nicole Smith tragedy. As with anyone who dies so young, I take no pleasure in what happened. I really have little to say about it except this.

In the midst of all the scrapping over the baby, the property and the money, I hope someone somewhere will comment on the lesson. If there was ever a classic example of the wages of sin and the domino effect sin has on countless lives, the tale of Anna Nicole Smith is it.

Only the Lord knows her eternal destiny. Quite honestly, I am not optimistic. A life lived for self indulgence typically doesn't call on God in humility at the end. There's seldom time. But those who remain behind have an opportunity to reflect. For their own sakes, I hope they do just that.

"It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgment."

Friday, February 09, 2007

Movies of "Faith" and the Critics

While out at lunch today, I purchased our local newspaper and found an article about the increasing number of Christian-themed films entering the market. While the article was largely positive, they had to throw an obligatory reference to critics. Specifically, the unnamed critics complain that the new crop of films "don't deal with the controversial sides of the religion."

Okay, I must be missing something here. I have been in journalism much of my adult life. I have also been a fan of film much of my entire life, preferring the Golden Age classics. I have never confused the two. Please tell me why it is mandatory for a Christian-themed film to include swipes from critics, controversies from church history, or any other negative aspect they can dream up?

The films in question are not documentaries. Documentaries have a journalistic purpose. These films do not. They are entertainment. They are art. They are supposed to tell a story. Unlike a news article or documentary, they don't have to be "fair and balanced," taking in all opposing views. Of course, if a film purports to be a "true story," then accuracy is paramount. If it's simply a fantasy story, then there's plenty of creative license.

Let's say I am telling the story of a coach or athlete whose faith inspired him/her to great achievements. In filming the picture, I shouldn't be expected to have to run out and film footage of some crank who hates religion in sports. Let's say I am telling the story of a missionary's work in China. I am not obligated to run to a university to shoot a scene with someone who thinks taking Christianity to another culture is tantamount to genocide. Get the idea? Having said all of this, I tend to think there is a larger issue at the heart of this flap.

Through the years, there have been plenty of critics who snipe at 1950s television shows like "Leave It To Beaver," arguing that they portray a phony picture of family life that isn't the experience of the vast majority. Well, I hate to disabuse them of the notion, but the dysfunctional, perverted "families" portrayed in many films or sitcoms aren't the norm with most either. And the snipers miss the point anyway. What was being portrayed in classic shows such as "Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" was an ideal. Ideals are things for which most people long and strive to obtain, or be. Ideals are supposed to be a noble aspiration. Ideals aren't anathema, unless the said ideal is resurrecting the values of Kristallnacht or some other monstrosity. There are good ideals and evil ideals. Have we lost sight of the difference? Oh, sorry. That would require a value judgment, wouldn't it. Silly me.

Maybe some of these sourpusses long for screaming fights, drugged or drunk parents, rebellious, smart-aleck children, one suicide or rape a month, and a host of other flies in the ointment. If they've got a taste for fecal matter, that's their prerogative. Most people I know long for something better.

They say they want reality portrayed? Really? Whose reality are they portraying? If they must portray a reality, why do they always have to head for the cesspool for their material? There are other realities out there besides dysfunctionality. Even the best of families will have issues from time to time. But having occasional issues and crises doesn't mean all families are following the templates of the families shown in many "reality" shows today.

I often wonder if some of these people who carp incessantly about what they view as naive or "prudish entertainment" aren't really driven by resentment and jealousy. They had or currently live less than an idyllic life, so they want to portray having such a life as impossible or in the realm of fantasy. They view those of us who live in "flyover country" as myopic, but they fail to see through the 1/4-inch thick glasses they've got on the bridges of their own noses.

Think about it for a moment. If these people had their way, Frank Capra or other legendary directors would never have been able to film a private birthday party, much less some of their timeless classics. Too maudlin. Too unrealistic. Too "insert critical adjective" here. They would prefer "Rosemary's Baby" over "The Nativity Story." They would disdain stories such as that of William Wilberforce or Peter Marshall, but celebrate any film that salaciously told the story of a well known pastor or evangelist's moral downfall. They really shouldn't give themselves away so easily.

Despite my rather acid tone in this post, the fact that there ARE more positive-themed, Christian-themed movies out there has me encouraged. Let's just hope that the momentum is sustained.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Yet Another Outrage from "Hollywood"

If you can, get a copy of today's USA Today newspaper or access it on line. In the "Life" section, there's a story about Justin, a 12-year-old Latino boy played by Mark Indelicato, who stars on the show "Ugly Betty." From all appearances, it looks like they're grooming his character to be gay according to the story. Here's a key quote - emphasis mine:

"Justin's sexuality has never been addressed on the show, but 'Betty' creator Silvio Horta, who is gay and came out to his Cuban-American family at age 19, says the character will experience 'the journey' as he matures. "I see myself in him," Horta says. "Growing up, I certainly felt like an outsider at times. But there's this sweet innocence in Justin that sees the positive."

I once mockingly called USA Today "USA To-gay." In this same issue, the lead story of the main section is about homosexual teens "coming out." Sympathetically portrayed, of course. Parents who object are cast as trolls and ogres. Religious convictions are portrayed by implication as oppressive and intolerant.

How much more will American society tolerate when it comes to things like this? When will society finally recognize what's going on here and arrest this garbage in its tracks. How far will the "entertainment" crowd be allowed to "push the envelope." Slippery slope arguments are often ridiculed, but it's hard to credibly deny a slippery slope when it gets proven to be true over and over again. What is next? Many have predicted a slide toward open advancement of pedophilia - the last taboo. Don't say it can't happen. It certainly can, and it will unless our society at large finally has a gut-full and puts its foot down.

Ambassador Alan Keyes said it best. "You do not have the right to do what is wrong."


The following is a link to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer. In this interview, the 12-year-old child himself rather confirms my fears at the end of the article. When asked about the "femminess" of his character, he says that he doesn't know if they'll make him gay eventually, but if so, he'll play it.

Now tell me. Would most parents with even a shred of traditional values want their 12-year-olds to be contemplating sodomy or acting the part of a character that engages int it? I think not. Anyway, here's the link for you to cut and paste into your browser. I don't have time to make it a clickable link. Read it for yourself:

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Why Is Vulgarity Celebrated?


By now, I am sure you have heard of the latest controversy surrounding both the advertisements during the Super Bowl, and the half time performance of Prince. In the latter instance, the pop artist is alleged to have used his unusually shaped guitar as a phallic symbol.

Vulgarity and tastelessness have been the hallmarks of the Super Bowl for the past few years. What is really ironic about this year's display is that the two head coaches of the respective teams are both declared Christians. I am sure neither of them would approve of vulgarity or raunch, but they have no say in the matter. They can't control networks, advertisers or musicians.

In one of the ads, two men are eating the same Snickers bar and end up in a figure-four liplock. They then have to do something to prove their manhood, including ripping the hair out of their chests. Homosexual activists cried foul, calling the ad "homophobic." I would have protested it simply because of the implied subject matter. Why is it that such a tiny minority whose behavior has historically been viewed as sinful and immoral commands such a high attention? I for one am tired of having every sexual perversion on God's green earth played out for everyone to see ad nauseum.

I can't stand the never-ending Nutrisystem ads. "Look at me, I'm in a size two." Yeah? Great. Now put a bag over your head and go away. (I don't really mean the girl in the ad personally - I'm just satirizing to illustrate my irritation with the repeat..repeat...repeat ad) As an aside and leaving health issues like thyroid aside, if most people would quit binging, they wouldn't have to worry about spending hundreds of dollars a month on some make-a-buck formula. The glycemic index has been known for years, and I didn't need some diet company to tell me about it. Much less irritate the stomach acid out of me by looping commercials during morning and afternoon drive time.

I can't stand the never ending Levitra, Cialis and other sexual performance ads. At times, I wish they'd follow the Apostle Paul's wish in Galatians, expressed toward those pushing false doctrine. Look it up and you'll see what I mean. I don't want to hear about their troubles any more. Go see a doctor in private and shut up! Or better yet, abstain and chew plenty of ice, followed by copious amounts of saltpeter. The world doesn't need to hear about your difficulties in the bedroom. I am sure most parents are tired of having to explain things to young children who really don't need to know that stuff yet.

I am tired of having a septic tank spewed at me night after night under the guise of entertainment. No one I know really appreciates it, yet we keep getting it night after night. Someone must be watching and someone must be making money or they wouldn't do it. On a more sinister possibility, maybe they don't care about losing money in the short term if they can affect the desired societal change in the long term. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist, once said that if you tell a lie often enough, people come to believe it. I am sure the same principle can be in play culturally. Keep throwing enough sewage out there, and sooner or later people will think it's Perrier spring water.

Why can't commercial producers actually use some creativity and produce a wholesome ad? Why can't musicians try to point the way to higher, nobler ideas instead of appealing to everyone's nether regions? Are we as a culture so absorbed and obsessed with sex that we can't go for 30 minutes without some reference to it - direct or implied? Whatever happened to being discreet? Whatever happened to leaving things to the imagination, if one MUST make such implications.

By now, some of my critics will call me prudish and anti-sex. Not at all. When it's done the way God intended, it's a beautiful thing. It's a gift. But our culture has made it something cheap, almost bestial. Celebrate perversion, promiscuity and lust. Celebrate death. Yes, death. Because that is where it will ultimately lead.

Monday, February 05, 2007

Sean Penn's Gaffe

I rise from my sickbed long enough to post this howler. On Fox News this evening, they played a quote from Sean Penn, who was speaking at a rally for an American soldier who is in hot water over refusing to deploy to Iraq. The notoriously leftist actor said that the lieutenant had taken an oath to "uphold international law."

Excuse me? American soldiers are sworn to uphold AMERICAN law i.e. the Constitition. Not international law. They answer to American presidents, not the Secretary General of the U.N. Sean Penn ought to know better. But like many limousine liberals, he's apparently clueless. And if he's not clueless and does indeed know better, then he's being disingenuous, which is worse.

Soldiers can't pick and choose their conflicts once they sign on the dotted line. He's in for a stretch at Leavenworth, and should thank God he didn't pull this in World War II. It's very possible he would have been shot.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Gavin Newsom's Chickens Roost - Big Time

The following is an AP story on the current scandal embroiling San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom. This story is very telling in a number of ways. I will highlight certain sections in bold:

Mayor Gavin Newsom apologized Thursday for having a sexual relationship with his former campaign manager's wife. "I'm deeply sorry," Newsom said during a brief news conference at City Hall the day after the aide resigned. Newsom appeared poised but visibly emotional. He spoke for about a minute and left without taking questions.

Alex Tourk, 39, resigned Wednesday after confronting his boss about his relationship with his wife, Ruby Rippey-Tourk, 34, who once worked as the mayor's appointment secretary. Newsom acknowledged that he had the affair first reported Wednesday night on the San Francisco Chronicle's Web site and apologized for what he called "a lapse of judgment."

"I want to make it clear that everything you've read is true and I'm deeply sorry about that," he said. "I hurt someone I care deeply about, Alex Tourk and his family and friends, and that is something I'm deeply sad about and sorry for."
Tourk, 39, served as Newsom's deputy chief of staff until September, when he became manager of the re-election campaign.
After his wife told him about the affair, Tourk approached the mayor about it, then resigned. Tourk did not immediately return phone calls and e-mails seeking comment by The Associated Press. "It has been an honor and a privilege to serve the Newsom campaigns and the city of San Francisco and its residents," Tourk said in a statement released by the mayor's office Wednesday.

Newsom, 39, who is seeking a second four-year term in November, said in the statement that he accepted Tourk's resignation "with great sadness," adding that he was "an extraordinary leader of our campaigns and a tireless public servant."
Rippey-Tourk told her husband that the affair was short-lived and happened about 1 1/2 years ago, when she worked for Newsom. At the time, Newsom was in divorce proceedings with his then-wife, Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle.
Rippey-Tourk, who left the mayor's office last spring and is now a local radio host, did not return the Chronicle's calls for comment, the newspaper said.

San Francisco residents said the mayor's interoffice dalliance would have little bearing on his performance as mayor.
"I could care less," said Lee Simmons, 79, at a downtown bank. "Newsom is great. I voted for him last time and I'll vote for him again." Tom Abbott, 36, an executive recruiter, said that having an affair with a loyal aide's wife was "a total slimeball move. "Any guy who puts that much mousse in his hair can't be trusted," Abbott said. "You don't screw over your own boys." However, Abbott said that he would probably vote for Newsom in November.

Construction worker Geremy Curtis, 34, agreed that while the news out of Newsom's office made for interesting gossip, "it will be laughed off," he said. "We put these people on a pedestal and think they are above all usual activities, and when they do something that is completely human, we are astonished," he said. Curtis predicted that San Francisco voters would forgive the mayor if he owned up to any lapses in judgment.

A few things stand out at me here. If you remember, Gavin Newsom is the mayor who made history a couple of years back by announcing that he was unilaterally ignoring state and federal law, and proclaiming homosexual marriage legal in San Francisco. If Hizzoner can thumb his nose without conscience about the law - something he is sworn to uphold in his oath of office - why should we be shocked if he ignores other laws, including the law of God?

Also note the attitude expressed by Mr. Simmons. He acknowledges that Newsom's actions were "slimeball," and "can't be trusted," yet in the next breath admits that Newsom would probably get his vote again.

Now, San Francisco is obviously the fruitiest and nuttiest place in the Land of Fruits and Nuts. Yet it is also symbolic of a cancer that is spreading across American society. If right and wrong mean so little to both elected officials and the public in general, then no one has any right to complain about ANYTHING going on in our society. To do so is to make a value judgment, something fewer and fewer people are willing to do. Anything goes, that is unless their personal ox is gored.

Let me state what San Franciscans are apparently unwilling to state - or even see. Mayor Newsom is a disgrace to the city, the state and the country. He ought to resign immediately. More than that, he should have been impeached and removed from office as soon as he pulled his first stunt on homosexual marriage. He betrayed his marriage. He betrayed his friend. He betrayed the people who elected him. Worst of all, he betrayed God.

I would like to see San Francisco do the right thing for a change and stand up for what is right. Sadly, it is more likely that the city will live up to its reputation of being the American Sodom.

One final observation. Cancer untreated metastasizes. Once it metastasizes, it is very difficult to stop. Eventually it kills. Yet there is another disease that also fits, namely leprosy. The flesh slowly rots off, but the disease numbs the nervous system to the point that the leper feels little. A leprosy patient's appearance becomes more and more hideous over time. It's truly sad. Our society has both cancer and leprosy. It is also comfortably numb to the idea that anything is wrong.

When judgment finally falls, how many of us will look back longingly as did Lot's wife? I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of being turned to something delivered by the Morton Salt truck.