Archive for October, 2007


October 12, 2007

One of these days, I need to compare and contrast Priesthood, Protestantism, and Baptists for openness with Windows, Unix, and Linux, and of course, mystery religions, Greek philosophy, and science.  Just think, if I can work in some references to politics, race, and sexual preferences, I can offend everybody at once.

Or at least, all 3 of the people who one day read the post….


Did Ann Coulter stir it up again?

October 12, 2007

Not exactly.

What Ann said.

Reading the interview, it looks like Donny Deutsch pushed as hard as he could to get Ann to say something really controversial, and the best he could get was that Ann thinks all Jews should be Christians, and that she compared a Jew becoming a Christian as being “perfected”.

Which is why I think that it’s not Ann Coulter who “stirred up” this latest controversy, but Donny Deutsch who pushed her to say why she thought Jews should be Christians, then called it “hateful” and “anti-Semitic”.

News flash: All Christians believe Jews should become Christians. Also Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, “Jehovah Witnesses”, Mormons, and Muslims. In fact, the push to convert everybody is a little thing often called the “Great Commission”.

But we see here that Ann’s comments are being proclaimed an “outrage.” Why? Because if all Jews became Christians, there would be less diversity in the world in terms of religion. And to modern liberals, “diversity” is far more important than any religion, or than the concept of truth itself.

Note that Ann, sharp as she normally is, walked right into this. Diversity was brought up by the host when he tried to argue that Ann’s perfect world would be less diverse, and Ann defended against this accusation by saying that diversity of race and nationality were more common in many megachurches than in the more liberal cities in blue states.

But Ann, as a Christian, is not a believer in diversity of religion, therefore she’s intolerant.

Of course, that radical Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”

So here’s the bottom line: To Donny Deutsch and others, “diversity” of religion is a more important value than the Christian faith, and refusal to agree with that is intolerant.

P.S. The perfection thing: Perfection in the Bible most often means “completion” or “fullness” or “maturity”, not “flawlessness”. For example,

2 Chron 8:16, “… until it was finished. So the house of the LORD was perfected”.

Acts 23:15 “… enquire something more perfectly” If perfect means flawless, then more perfectly means more flawlessly, which doesn’t make sense. If perfect means complete, then “enquire … more completely” makes sense.

It’s not just the Bible, though. In the Preamble to the Constitution, one goal is “to form a more perfect union”. A more flawless union? Doesn’t make sense. A more complete or full union? Makes a lot of sense.

So in this sense, when Jesus dies on the cross, he fulfills the Law’s demands for a sacrifice on sin, as well as prophecies of the Messiah, thereby “perfecting” the Law. As in Matt 5:17, “I am not come to destroy [the law], but to fulfil”. Which is almost certainly what Ann Coulter meant about “perfecting” Jews who become Christians. They become believers in a faith that has been perfected by Jesus Christ. Col 2:10, “And ye are complete in him…” (I could find lots more verses, but this is not a tutorial, just a brief explanation)

That might sound like political spin, but it was fairly basic Christian doctrine long before Ann Coulter’s first book.

Here again

October 12, 2007

Okay, so maybe I won’t post here every day.

Religous Right and Rudy Republican Rift

October 8, 2007

I see via Hot Air that the New York Times is concerned that the religious right might be fracturing over Rudy Giuliani. It may be more accurate to say they’ve been impatiently waiting for it to happen, since it fits their notion of the religious right in general as ignorant and intolerant types. The incident prompting this expectation was James Dobson saying that Rudy was unacceptable to him as a Republican candidate, and that he and those who agreed with him would rather create a third party and nominate a pro-life candidate than vote for Rudy.

I’m always touched by the New York Times showing such solicitation for us backwards types. Other than that, I’m not too concerned, for multiple reasons.

First, Dobson is hardly a “kingmaker.” So his opposition is not exactly the Crack of Doom for the Republican party in general or Rudy Giuliani in particular.

Second, while Dobson is pushing the envelope with talk of creating a third-party just to avoid compromising on a Giuliani candidacy, he does have a valid point. It’s basic politics: if you want someone’s vote, you need to pay attention to the issues that concern him.

There are those in the Republican party who are almost giddy to have a candidate that is relatively liberal — pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage, etc. They think these positions will help him do well in blue states, while the red states will vote for him because anything is better than the presumptive Democrat, Hillary.

And if the religious conservatives, or social cons, don’t like it: well, that’s too bad. What are they gonna do, vote for Hillary?

Then they read this about Dobson, and the poll that suggests the religious right is at least open to the idea of a third party that will nominate a true conservative, and they are outraged. Several commenters at Hot Air are calling the religious right stupid for even considering it.

I half-way agree. A split party would basically give the nomination to the Democrats, and we can’t afford that. That’s the half I agree with.

The half I disagree with is this: There are two sides to this story. If the Republicans split because half of them push a candidate the other half finds unacceptable, it’s just as much the fault of those who tried to ram “their” candidate down the others’ throats as it is the fault of those who refuse to accept the candidate.

That is, you could just as easily blame those who are pushing Rudy, knowing that significant chunks of the party, their putative allies, are less than pleased with him.

Of course, this kind of issue is exactly what the whole candidacy process is about. Eventually, there will be a Republican candidate, and everyone will rally around him. But whoever that candidate is, he’ll have to give both sides reason to unite behind him.


October 8, 2007

When I started this blog, I said I wouldn’t be stressed about necessarily updating it every day.  Of course, my last post was over six months ago, which was slightly overdoing the non-stressing part of updating the blog.

Let’s see if I can find a happy medium (in the non-spiritualist sense of the word, obviously) …  There’s a lot going on in the world, and I’m sure there are a lot of people waiting breathlessly for my opinion on all of it.

Hmmm.  Where’s the sarcasm tag in this thing?