I hadn’t really intended to watch last night’s presidential candidate forum hosted by Saddleback Church and their celebrity pastor, Rick Warren. Part of the reason was that I was uncomfortable with the idea of a church being the host of a purely political event.

I’m still not sure how involved churches need to be involved in politics although I agree with those who believe that IRS regulations that restrict pastors from discussing politics should be repealed.

I’m not a big fan of Rick Warren, either. For all the good he has done, I disagree with his whole purpose-driven approach to church. I didn’t care for his bestselling book as I thought it was too theologically shallow. I honestly wasn’t sure that he would be willing to ask tough questions. I doubted Pastor Warren’s motives thinking he was looking for a way to give Senator Barack Obama a chance to make an appeal to evangelical voters who could very much decide the outcome of the election.

The format of the forum with each candidate being asked the same questions separately and not knowing the other’s answers seemed a bit unconventional. I wasn’t sure it would work.

I was wrong.

Read the rest of this entry

Watch this video for some details into Barack Obama’s position on abortion, specifically his position on what to do with babies born alive after a botched abortion.

Yes, this video does make an emotional appeal, but listen to the facts as well.  This is Obama living up to his reputation as the most liberal of Senators.  Hey, he’s even to the left of NARAL, if you can go that far without falling off the political spectrum.

[tags]Barack Obama,US presidential election,abortion[/tags]

Regarding the recent invasion of Russian forces into Georgia, Rod Dreher links to Fred Kaplan. Kaplan states,

Bush pressed the other NATO powers to place Georgia’s application for membership on the fast track. The Europeans rejected the idea, understanding the geo-strategic implications of pushing NATO’s boundaries right up to Russia’s border. If the Europeans had let Bush have his way, we would now be obligated by treaty to send troops in Georgia’s defense. That is to say, we would now be in a shooting war with the Russians. Those who might oppose entering such a war would be accused of “weakening our credibility” and “destroying the unity of the Western alliance.”

Dreher states,

To be fair, refusing to defend a NATO country that had come under attack would weaken the credibility of the alliance. But of course it would be insane to get into a shooting war with Russia — which still has nuclear weapons — to defend Georgia. This is why Bush had no business leading the Georgians on with this kind of crazy talk…

…

As repellent as I find the prospect of an Obama presidency, the idea of hotheaded John McCain sitting in the Oval Office now trying to figure out how to deal with a newly aggressive Russia makes me extremely nervous — this, to the extent that a McCain administration, on national security and foreign policy, represents a third Bush term.

Maybe Dreher and Kaplan should spray some Windex on their crystal balls.

The way I see it, the Russians not only see us as resource-stretched (and rightly so), what with our commitments to Afghanistan and Iraq, but they also see a lame-duck president.

More importantly, however, I think that they view the American people’s will as weak, and that their own fortune-tellers are envisioning an upcoming administration chock-full of platitudes, yet devoid of substance.

Notice that many of the complaints and criticisms of the way we’re handling the global war on terror link back to 20th century modes of thinking. Comparisons are made to Vietnam, the Cold War, NATO, etc. The problem is, we aren’t living in the 20th century. There is no Soviet Bloc, we aren’t on the verge of nuclear annihilation and, for the most part, we aren’t facing an enemy clothed in identifiable uniforms.

In Rethinking Russia on Terrorism Issues, Douglas Farah states,

…Russia is set on selling weapons to those who want very badly to hurt us, and who buy their weapons with the stated purpose of using them for that.

Everyone sells weapons, and yes, the United States plays in the game. But Russia’s willingness to arm non-state actors and states that are facing international sanction is qualitatively different.

This is the world we face, in the 21st century.

Matthew Yglesias:

Watch in amazement as John McCain condemns Russia for having the temerity to cross an international boundary — “in the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”

We all recall, of course, John McCain’s outrage when the United States violated this rule back in 2003.

So James Taranto’s prediction has quickly come true.  Which got me wondering; how many dozen UN resolutions does it take before an invasion is OK by international standards, and how many resolutions was Russia enforcing when it invaded the Republic of Georgia?

[tags]Mathew Yglesias,John McCain,Russia,James Taranto,Best of the Web Today,United Nations,Republic of Georgia[/tags]

John McCain said "…today we are all Georgians."  The Lefty blogosphere’s reaction:

Matthew Yglesias:

Common sense indicates that, no, I am not a Georgian. But John McCain says “today we are all Georgians.” But does he mean it? Suppose Russia was bombing Atlanta and threatening to advance to Savannah. In solidarity with Georgia (the state) Americans from all fifty states would band together and fight the Russians off. Now I don’t think we should go to war with Russia. And I hope John McCain doesn’t think we should go to war with Russia. But insofar as he doesn’t mean that we should go to war with Russia on Georgia’s behalf, what’s the meaning of the claim that “we are all Georgians”?

On one level, it’s empty political sloganeering. But on another level it’s not empty — it’s downright irresponsible, and an example of the sort of irresponsible behavior that got us into this.

"smintheus", on the front page of the Daily Kos:

How would the trad media have portrayed Barack Obama if he had behaved as John McCain has done since Georgian President Saakashvili sent troops into South Ossetia? Would it have been ‘presumptuous’ to issue proposals to intervene in the fighting even before the President had spoken? To stake out an aggressive position far in front of anything the US wished to adopt? To attack a rival candidate for refusing to do the same?

Jasen at ElectoPundit:

Maybe John McCain would like to get us involved in ethnic cleansing campaigns, or nuclear exchanges?

Michael Crowley at The New Republic:

It may be a noble sentiment, and Georgia is deserving of American diplomatic support. But is he really speaking for all–or even most–Americans? My strong hunch is that precious few Americans want to feel they’re the victims of Russian aggression. Instead they want all the foreign-policy madness to calm down already. It hardly seems a winning message for McCain to imply that in their hearts the American people should consider themselves at war with Russia.

A. Serwer at The American Prospect:

I think I speak for most Americans when I say:

"Does he mean the state?"

In all seriousness, if the battle over South Ossetia is 9/11, then didn’t McCain just commit us to a military response, since that’s how the United States responded in the aftermath of the WTC attacks? The election hasn’t even happened yet and he’s trying to start new wars.

Some people might call that "presumptuous."

I wonder what these folks would think if, say, a Democratic President, in the middle of the Cold War, went to West Berlin and said,

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words ‘Ich bin ein Berliner!

Do you think there’d be nearly the accusations of war-mongering and presumption then?  (Hint: No.)  JFK claimed to speak for the entire free world, for goodness sake!

Perhaps McCain should have said, "I am a Georgian" in Georgian.  That would have been OK, right?  Right?

[tags]John McCain,Russia,Republic of Georgia,Matthew Yglesias,Daily Kos,The American Prospect,ElectoPundit,The New Republic,John F. Kennedy[/tags]

Used to be that scientists thought that our solar system was pretty normal, and that there were plenty just like it out there.  TV shows like Star Trek and Stargate:SG1, among many others, traded on that to create unlimited worlds to explore.

On top of that, the idea that man is special in the universe, as suggested by the Bible, was taken down a few notches by that assertion.  If there are so many systems that would support life as we know it, the idea that God created just us seems a quaint anachronism. 

Well, as it turns out, our solar system is "pretty special", according to the headline in ScienceDaily last week.  Remember the old analogy of monkey’s typing on a jillion typewriters just waiting for a Shakespeare sonnet to come out, and its parallel to evolutionist theory about random chemicals banging together to create life?  Well, time to add a few jillion barrels of monkeys to the mix.  Apparently, coming up with a solar system like ours ain’t that easy.

Prevailing theoretical models attempting to explain the formation of the solar system have assumed it to be average in every way. Now a new study by Northwestern University astronomers, using recent data from the 300 exoplanets discovered orbiting other stars, turns that view on its head.

The solar system, it turns out, is pretty special indeed. The study illustrates that if early conditions had been just slightly different, very unpleasant things could have happened — like planets being thrown into the sun or jettisoned into deep space.

So what did they find out?

Before the discovery in the early 1990s of the first planets outside the solar system, our system’s nine (now eight) planets were the only ones known to us. This limited the planetary formation models, and astronomers had no reason to think the solar system unusual.

"But we now know that these other planetary systems don’t look like the solar system at all," said Frederic A. Rasio, a theoretical astrophysicist and professor of physics and astronomy in Northwestern’s Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences. He is senior author of the Science paper.

"The shapes of the exoplanets’ orbits are elongated, not nice and circular. Planets are not where we expect them to be. Many giant planets similar to Jupiter, known as ‘hot Jupiters,’ are so close to the star they have orbits of mere days. Clearly we needed to start fresh in explaining planetary formation and this greater variety of planets we now see."

The more we find out, the more we see that we really got "lucky" (in scientific parlance) to have such a nice place to call home.

[tags]solar system,planetary formation,Frederic A. Rasio,Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences[/tags]

James Taranto, writing for the Wall St. Journal, tried to anticipate an argument by anti-war types:

Here’s what’s going to happen next: Someone will argue that America lacks the "moral standing" to oppose Russian intervention in Georgia, because we intervened in Iraq "without U.N. approval." When the U.S. liberated Iraq, of course, it was acting to enforce the Security Council’s own resolutions. So America’s acting to overcome U.N. fecklessness will be invoked as an excuse for Russia’s unprovoked violation of another country’s sovereignty. U.N. idolatry runs counter to the U.N.’s own purported reason for existing.

As blogger TigerHawk notes, though, they may not ever make that argument because they won’t have much of anything to say.  After checking off the many groups that have nothing to say about it (and crediting the one that did), he concludes:

So far, at least, it is safe to conclude that these organizations are not so much anti-war as they are anti-American and anti-Israeli. It is useful to clear that up.

Since that post, two sites have said at least something about it.  Democracy Now has conducted an interview with a retired Air Force Colonel about the history in the region.  The Stop the War Coalition has an opinion piece that essentially states that Georgia is as much to blame for the conflict.  But there is still basically no real outrage.  Pretty much all quiet on the anti-war front.  And if the only wars that they are against, or even bother to work up a sweat about, are those involving the US or Israel, then I’d say they need to relabel themselves or lose their own moral authority.

[tags]moral authority,anti-war,Democracy Now,Stop the War Coalition,James Taranto,Best of the Web Today[/tags]

I’ve meant to do something like this for a while; post a thought from the recent Sunday sermon.  Our pastor prepares notes with blanks to fill in to help memory retention, and they’re 3-hole punched to keep in a small notebook.  I’m going to (try to) post just a thought from the sermon here at the beginning of the week.

(I attend Lilburn Alliance Church with pastor Fred Hartley.  There is a link to the previous Sunday’s sermon on the main page of the web site, or you can subscribe to the podcast.)

The series our pastor is beginning a study of John 15, starting this week with just the first verse.  The NIV translation of this verse is, "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener."  He covered the whole first verse, but I’m going to just touch on the first phrase of it.  The literal translation of that phrase from the Greek is "I, I am, the true the vine…."  No, that’s not a typo.  If you look at the Greek version, even if you don’t know Greek (and I don’t), you’ll see the first two words meaning "I" and "I am", and a short one-letter word preceding each of the next two words, being the definite article "the".  Again, I’m not a Greek scholar and I’m taking Pastor Hartley’s word for this, so feel free to comment if you find something different.

This construction of "I, I am" is (as I understand it) unique in Greek literature.  This is meant to convey the fact that Jesus is the "I Am" of the book of Exodus.  This is another of His many claims of divinity.  Jesus used this construct on at least 6 other occasions, including one that got the religious leaders perturbed.  (Again, the Greek translation shows this.)  For those that suggest that Jesus never actually claimed to be the divine Son of God, these instances are some of those where he did, in a language that his hearers would understand.

Then there is the construction "the true the vine".  Here, Jesus is claiming exclusivity, again using a language construct that his hearers understood.  He is not a true vine, one vine of many truths.  Instead he is the one and only vine that is true.  There are other vines, but none that are as eternally true as Jesus.  Again, this goes up against claims that Jesus is but one of the many ways to God.  He never spoke of any other way but Himself, and he spoke of Himself as the single path to God the Father, in ways that both the people he spoke to could understand, and even more plainly for the rest of us that don’t speak Greek.

I’ve had a few discussions with folks in the past, going back to the Bulletin Board Systems of old (pre-Internet, for you young’uns) where I’ve heard the claims about Jesus never intending to claim exclusivity, and the many ways in which people try to shoe-horn Jesus into their own religion or philosophy.  The problem is, and has always been, that Jesus didn’t ever allow for that in what He said.  He fully intended to stand alone and unique in human history, and efforts to incorporate His teachings, and He Himself, into the religions of others is a testament to the power in His words, and the deception of those trying to claim Him. 

A person’s faith is a window into their soul. For a politician, how he or she speaks about his or her faith will tell you something about how they will govern. Stephen Mansfield, author of the new book The Faith of Barack Obama, says that in examining the Senator’s faith journey gave him insight not only into the Democratic presidential nominee but insight into larger cultural trends as well.
“Barack Obama’s faith and his spiritual journey not only are shaping this election but also, as you tell the story and reflect on it, captures many of the trends that are most powerful and transforming in this age,” said Mr. Mansfield in a recent interview.

Read the rest of this entry

Ever wondered what it would be like to tour with a rock band? Wonder what challenges a Christian band has to face out on the road?

Nigel James, founder of Ignite, a UK based youth discipleship minstry, has traveled extensively for Third Day for the past eight years. He brings unique insights into the hearts and minds of the band members in a new book entitled Lessons From The Road.

Read the rest of this entry

• A report from Burma.
• If you had $10b for charity … how would you use it?
• Bridal culture … yikes. Sanity needed here I think.
• Against nationalizing health care … or a really good reason to oppose Mr Obama.
• A Day in the Life, remembered.
• Could it be global warming? … after all for the last 16 months global temperatures have been on a dramatic downturn, but when all you have in your toolshed is a hammer, a hammer is what you use.

In a post entitled Why I Walked Out of Church, writer/artist Julie Neidlinger assesses what’s wrong with many of today’s churches (hat tip: WorldMagBlog):

A recent cover story at World Magazine about “NextGen Worship” inspired a strong desire to smack the pastors depicted in the article and in the photos. The cover photo alone enraged me, with the pastor wearing baggy jeans and untucked button-up shirt with flip flops and an ear microphone. Later, the same guy is shown out front of a church holding a paper Starbucks-like cup of coffee. Could he try any harder to be lame?

I’d have liked to have taken that cup of coffee and dumped it on his head. But it’s nothing personal against that guy or his beliefs or sincerity. It’s an anger at something else.

I’m not going to be one of those starched-collar Christians who, based on personal preference, say that this is a sign we’re going to hell in a handbasket and that all things are wrong unless they are done as they were with the Puritans. What I’m saying is that I can’t stand the phoniness, or trendiness, or sameness — or whatever I’m trying to say here — that the church seems to catch onto at the tail end, not even aware of how lame it is. The fact that this is not only actually successful in appealing to people, but attracts them, also disgusts me.

It makes me want to throw up.

It’s buying into some kind of lie or substitution of cool culture as being relevant when it isn’t.

The entire article is worth reading very carefully as Julie has a lot to say. No doubt there are many other people that feel the same way.

The fortress built by pundits on the left are starting to crack … from the inside.

In the aftermath of Barack Obama’s overseas trip, the liberal punditocracy has begun to fret. Certainly there is reason for concern. Obama’s poll numbers are within the margin of error in a year in which a generic Democrat would be beating a generic Republican by double digits. And the storylines which dominated the news since the trip have been ones unfavorable to their chosen candidate: his ego, the snub of wounded U.S. soldiers in Germany, a potential flip-flop on offshore drilling and a poorly received attempt to play the race card.

Richard Cohen was one liberal pundit who emerged from the fog of Obama-mania. Cohen threw cold water on the notion that a liberal Senate candidate from Hyde Park showed political courage by opposing the Iraq war, and then recited chapter and verse on the flip-flop orgy:

He has been for and against gun control, against and for the recent domestic surveillance legislation and, in almost a single day, for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control and then, when apprised of U.S. policy and Palestinian chagrin, against it. He is an accomplished pol — a statement of both admiration and a bit of regret.

But what really irked Cohen was Obama’s “tissue thin” record and the nagging sense that despite Obama’s attractive packaging Cohen was “still not sure, though, what’s in it.”

Indeed, these concerns (and other concerns by many other pundits including Dana Millbank; read the whole thing) have been raised by Republicans for some time.  Yet they were dismissed as being racist, jealous, out of touch, and distracting from the real issues.  Some writers chided McCain’s attacks on the media for being in the tank as desperate, but perhaps some have taken it to heart. 

By all accounts, Obama should be trouncing McCain.  That he isn’t, and that this is surprising to the media, is a bigger indicator of who is really out of touch.

[tags]liberal media,Barack Obama,Jennifer Rubin,Dana Millbank[/tags]

• Two for Transfiguration, which is remembered today. Here and here.
• Christians in Indonesia protest sharia.
• A precis of Mr Obama, one which his supporters will likely object to, but one which might resonate with those who don’t appreciate his charm.
• Words in favor of the left second favorite whipping boy, Mr Cheney. I’d add I’m very impressed by Cheney’s practice of giving over 70% of his income to charities, and that one of those charities is the Chicago Symphony.
• Two sorts of equity.
• Single parenthood and smoking.
• A phrase explained, “eat bitter.”

The military and its use in defending the country are one of the powers expressly enumerated in our Constitution.  Unlike other responsibilities that some would like to give to it (e.g. health care, as I’ve discussed here before), this particular duty is spelled out quite clearly.  Our founding fathers, in attempting to limit the federal government’s powers while leaving the rest to the states or the people, made sure that this power was indeed a federal issue.  Defense of its citizens and interests is a proper role of government.

Over time, aspects of the military have changed, but none more controversial than its makeup.  When a racially-integrated military was suggested, initial reactions against it were mostly due to racial prejudice than anything else, either on the part of the person reacting or on the assumption that such prejudice existed in the ranks.  As racial views changed, that integration became far easier.

Over time, another type of integration took place; that of including women in combat.  The concept was not entirely new (it goes back to ancient times), but in the US, while the controversy was heated in earlier decades, as women were included more and more the issue isn’t considered that big a deal anymore, on par with racial integration.  However, I think that recent events should give us pause to consider the question again.

There have always been the straw arguments that proponents of women in combat have attributed to the other side that either were never actually presented or were extreme minority opinions.  One of those was that women weren’t as patriotic as men or willing to die for freedom.  This was typically presented as the claim that women were just as patriotic, with the implication that the other side didn’t think so. 

However, there are a number of arguments against women in combat that represent real physical and psychological concerns, and not always on the part of the women themselves.  Wikipedia presents some of these arguments, including physical differences and the reaction of men to wounded women.  The tradition and seeming instinct of protecting women plays into this.  The cry, "Women and children first", was never taken to be a call to arms.  The Wikipedia article notes, regarding experiments with women in integrated units in the Israeli Defense Force:

The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.

Say what you will about the male and the protection instinct, it’s real and it’s there (and it’s not a bad thing).

Another issue has been that of romantic relationship within the unit, causing a couple to perhaps become more concerned about each other than the remainder of the unit, or a love triangle which would create less concern between some.  Unit cohesion is paramount in combat, and adding this dimension can easily cancel out any other gains.  (Incidentally, this is, at least to me, the main reason to be against gays in the military.) 

It’s this sexual angle to the inclusion of women that can be the most destructive.  And to some, it can be far worse than an issue with a jilted lover.

Read the rest of this entry