Liberal's Duel Standard Tiring and Irksome

Let me take you back in our recent past to a comment that infuriated some of our nation’s leaders. It came at the 100th birthday celebration of Sen. Strom Thurmond, who ran as a “Dixiecrat” for president of the United States in 1948. Thurmond at that time was a strict segregationist.

So they are honoring him at the occasion of his 100th birthday and Trent Lott, in his tribute to Thurmond says, “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either…"

There was an immediate uproar by the usual plate of Democrats accusing Lott of making a racist remark implying that he believed that we should go back to the days of segregation, etc. Bowing to political pressures, where perception is reality—whether factual or not—Lott apologized saying, "My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life."
Not good enough though. Eternal griper, Jesse Jackson called for Lott to resign, and former bag-of-wind-in-Chief, Al Gore said that Lott should apologize for his comments or face censure by the Senate. So Lott apologized AGAIN.
So here I am listening to my radio this week and I hear a recorded speech from high ranking Democrat, Joe Biden and he makes the following statement: “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking…”
I don’t know to what Biden was referring but it doesn’t really matter. Still, there was NO reaction; let me say that again; there was NO reaction from any democrat that I am aware of or the media over what was clearly a truly racist comment by this high ranking leader.
There was no huffing and puffing by Jesse Jackson; no bloviating by Al Gore, no editorials demanding Biden’s resignation; nothing, zip nada!
And my point yet again is that it is only conservatives that are held to any standard of right and wrong. Liberals are immune to the rule of law, the rule of decency; the rule of morality; the rule of common courtesy. Now why is that, I ask foolishly?

Response to a response re: Bridges For Peace

In response to a former recent commentary on a group called the Bridges For Peace (see earlier entry) one reader states: *”While I agree in principal with your larger view of the BFP group, I do disagree with your statement in regards to freedom.”
The writer makes numerous assertions that reflect a willing indoctrination to the propaganda set forth in the media rather than a studied assessment of the facts.
He sites the “abuse of personal freedoms” referring to Gitmo and adds, “…the list goes on and on.”
This is all popular rubbish disseminated by the press and others with a pointedly liberal/anti-Bush bias. The fact is, the detainees at Gitmo and elsewhere are being treated with kit gloves and frankly have been extended more consideration than the typical American citizen detained or otherwise. (cf. my previous blog regarding the treatment of Muslims by our military)
He then tips his hand and makes me question his stated allegiance to a conservative ideology. “We were lied to from the beginning in this conflict and the story has changed at least 3 times.”
Having read Bob Woodward’s book Plan of Attack, (Woodward is no Bush lackey) it is clear that Bush is a leader of consummate integrity. The reason the book disappeared from sight and sound so quickly is because the liberal public was dismayed that Woodward, with painstaking effort, confirms Bush’s veracity and that he didn’t lie to America or anyone else.

The writer continues; “Yes, Saddam was a bad man, but so are a dozen leaders in Africa, many engaged in genocide on historical levels, yet we don't even seem to notice.”
The writer has a point about the Sudan but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand concerning Iraq. Let’s stay on task.
Finally the writer says, “To blindly follow one ideology without question is worse than so called “liberals” who would protest an administration that has at every turn, ignored the will of the people, lied, and used nothing more than a constant state of fear to manipulate policy and freedoms for their purposes. Misguided?”
I have never advocated an unquestioning response to one’s leaders. Nice try but that’s a straw man. What I do advocate is a questioning mindset with verifiable answers facilitating wise and informed decisions; not self absorbed, short-sighted reactions based on fallacious information based on a world view that has at its center, personal gratification, and a road of least resistance mentality grounded in temporal pragmatism. Misguided he asks? Absolutely!
*Obviously due to the very limited time I have for my commentaries I cannot give a complete quote. To see the writer’s comment, simply scroll down to the blog re: Bridges For Peace and go to the comments at the bottom.

Summer Worship?

Well as we enter the dog days of Summer, I wonder how many of you people of faith have stuck God in the back of the barn with the snow shovel and salt and don’t intend to retrieve Him until the snows fly again.

In other words, how’s your summer church commitment? Are you worshipping the Creator of the Universe each week with the body of Christ, called--His Church, or are you doing what the writer of Hebrews advises against—namely, forsaking the assembling of yourselves?

Don’t give me that, “I can worship God wherever I am; I don’t have to be in a church building…” That is a true statement but the biblical fact of the matter is that 1st, you’d better be worshipping God wherever you are and NOT just in a church building once a week. And 2nd, say what you will, the fact remains, the Church is called the Bride of Christ and it is the institution He created for the purpose of corporate gatherings of followers of his to minister to one another, to praise His name, to learn more about Him and to encourage those around you.

So this idea of taking the summer off from God is, uh dare I say it, SIN. That’s right, I know it’s not a word we use much anymore but it’s still a good word!

C’mon Christian, God became a man not regarding equality with God a thing to be grasped but humbled Himself taking the form of a bondservant and being made in the likeness of men.” (Philippians 2:5ff) If he did that for you, is it too much of a sacrifice for you to honor Him by gathering with the other believers and singing and praying to His glory?

"But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.” John 4:23
Can you imagine? God enjoys hearing you sing? Hearing you pray? Hearing you talk about Him with others. I don’t get it either but He does so I’ll just enjoy it, will you?

"Bridges For Peace?" Misdirected at Best...

I was enjoying the fourth of July parade in the town of Winslow which is always the best parade of the year by far! The weather cooperated and it was just a grand time celebrating our nation’s fight for freedom; a freedom which has come at a phenomenally costly price. It was this thought that I was thinking on when the “Bridges For Peace” float came by.

The Bridges For Peace is the group that periodically stands on the bridge on Kennedy Memorial Drive protesting the war in Iraq. Well intentioned I am sure but woefully naïve and patently offensive for they oppose the very institutions from which they derive their “peace.”

Apparently the notion of sacrifice and fighting for freedom are concepts that are no longer in the realm of consciousness of these so-called peace loving people who live in la-la land instead of the real world. Somewhere along the line they have determined that peace is just the natural course of man’s destiny and if it weren’t for the power hungry capitalists who currently run the country, the world would be a paradise.

What irks me about this ideology is that I believe it is an extension of the entitlement mentality that has become the god of liberals in our country. Let me explain.

Liberals tend to believe that material equality is a divine right and should just be granted by fiat to everyone irrespective of their willingness to put forth hard work, uncompromising integrity and responsibility. Their mindset is that fairness and equity demands that you take from the hard working and “well-off” (who are well-off because of that hard work) and give some of their material possessions to those who have the ability to do likewise, but who choose not to.

This of course is blatant rubbish, which Jesus made clear in Luke 19. When Jesus took the one mina from the sluggard and gave it to the industrious one who had earned ten, the people protested! (You see liberals go WAY back…) Yet Jesus’ corrects their warped sense of fairness saying, "I tell you, that to everyone who has, shall more be given, but from the one who does not have [implied--because of sloth] even what he does have shall be taken away.”

So, as I see it, the BFP folks want all the benefits of freedom without the sacrifice or the work. Like I said, that’s not fair, and that’s just not reality; not in our world, and not in the world of the Savior; now or to come.

Liberal Presbyterians Go Farther Afield

Well the heretics in power at the Presbyterian USA manage to keep moving farther and farther away from Biblical truth—not that it matters to the majority.
Two weeks ago the denomination decided to devise a more inclusive designation for the Holy Trinity. Now what would compel someone to want to make such a change? A panel of the Church stated one reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women."
Okay, so the Scriptures have been misunderstood, and misapplied; that is certainly nothing novel. But what is at issue here is the seriousness, not simply of changing a few words but the entire view of the Holy Bible—is it the inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative Word of God or isn’t it? If it is, then the prerogative to change words, especially knowingly changing their clear, literal meaning and clear, literal gender in the original language is a serious maneuver. So what did the panel come up with in lieu of Father, Son and Holy Spirit? How about "Mother, Child and Womb"?
First I have to ask, “How is changing from one gender specific referent to another gender specific referent going to remedy the issue? Such a change confuses, to say the least, theological reality.
Mark’s quoting John the Baptist becomes a rather unintelligible, "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Womb." Mark 1:8
Luke says of John the Baptist before he is born, "…he will be great in the sight of the Lord…and he will be filled with the Womb, while yet in his mother's womb.” Luke 1:15
This is just more religious foolishness that will not go unanswered and undisciplined. But lest this all takes you by surprise, let’s remember these are the same folks who several years back sponsored the utterly blasphemous “Re-imagining Conference” where the goddess Sophia replaced God Almighty.
This is the same conference that determined the Gospel was too violent, too gory, and too contrived to be real so did away with it and these are the same folks who just passed a resolution allowing local congregations and regional "presbyteries" the prerogative of ordaining clergy and lay officers living in homosexual relationships. Why would this most recent absurdity surprise anyone?

*Don't confuse the heretical Pres. USA with the orthodox Pres. Church of America! (PCA)