Some Things Never Change

I'm currently reading "Truman" by David McCullough. I really enjoyed his book, "1776" and had a mild interest in reading this. It's almost 1000 pages and I wasn't sure if I wanted to interrupt the adventures of The Three Musketeers to dive into what might be a boring tale about ol' Give 'em Hell Harry. But McCullough does history like a novel so I figured what the heck. I borrowed the book from my son-in-law and began to plod along. The one issue I was most interested in exploring was the dropping of the bomb. This issue has come up in other discussions at other blogs, including a very respectful set of postings at ELAshley's old blog on the anniversary of the Hiroshima event. I thought I'd get a pretty in depth perspective from this book.

But I'm only at page 166 thus far. Harry just won his first political campaign as a local judge, but it sounds more like a county commissioner type of job. He'd deal with finances and doling out patronage jobs.

But here's the part that stood out for me: The area of Missouri where Harry lived, Kansas City, Independence and there abouts, was a strong Democratic region. Republicans were a tiny minority and the real drama of campaigning was found in the Dem primaries. There were two major factions at the time. One was called the "goats" who followed the Pendergast machine, and the other was the "rabbits" who were lead by a guy named Shannon.

Frankly, the Dems did a lot for people at the time and it didn't matter what party you said you were from. If you had need, they'd be there, but they did ask for a vote as the only payment. (Hmmm. Sounds like they're setting themselves up some victims; cultivating an entitlement mentality.) But it was in the campaigning where they did shine. From the book:

"The difference between the two factions was mainly a matter of style. The Goats liked to win with strength, with big turnouts on election day. The Rabbits were known for their cleverness. But both sides could play rough---with money or by calling out the saloon bullies. Strong-arm tactics at the polls, ballot-stuffing, ballot-box theft, the buying of votes with whiskey or cash, bloody, headlong street brawls, all the odious strategems that had made big-city machine politics notorious since the time of New York's Boss Tweed, had been brought to bear to determine which side within the party gained the upper hand. 'Stealing elections had become a high art,' wrote one man, 'refined and streamlined by the constant factional battles...' "

I especially enjoyed this part regarding the repayment of help rendered:

"All that was expected in return was gratitude expressed at the polls on election day. and to most of his people this seemed little enough to ask and perfectly proper. Many, too, were happy to be 'repeaters,' those who voted 'early and often' on election day. The woman who worked in the hospital laundry, as an example, started as a repeater at age eighteen, three years shy of the voting age, and enjoyed every moment. She and several others would dress up in different costumes for each new identity, as they were driven from polling place to polling place in a fine, big car. It was like play-acting, she remembered years later. She would vote at least four or five times before the day ended. 'Oh I knew it was illegal, but I certainly never thought it was wrong.' "

Wow. Imagine that. Democrats cheating. Like Hugh Hewitt said in his book, "If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat", Dems really have been doing this a long time.

PC Buffoonery

Today's American Thinker (yeah, I know. But they've just had some interesting little articles lately.) had a column on the University of Wisconsin-Madison and their "Think Respect" program. The article was actually on how this idiotic program withered away from non-participation. What struck me was that someone in a position as lofty as a dean at a major university could be so stupid as to think it was a good idea in the first place. What was called for was turning in or reporting anyone who engaged in any behavior or speech that was deemed offensive by any of a number of groups of apparently overly sensitive people. Yeah. I want my daughters to go and whine about being called a "chick" or a "broad" or a "Christian" or a "conservative". Oh wait. The last two wouldn't garner them the time of day.

In any case, it's nice to know that even if the kids are hopelessly indoctrinated already, that they still retain the sense to know crap when they see it. A student wrote in the school paper how they were capable of dealing with inappropriate speech without the help to the faculty. Good for them. Let's hope they see political correctness for what it is as well.

Peace Offering

I have been mulling over the events following my posting of "Apparently I'm Weird". It saddens me that Geoffrey has decided to no longer visit here. I know that there are some that may say, "Good Riddance". I'm not one of them. I don't deny that I have some problems when conversing with him. He routinely misrepresents what I say. He assumes things about me which have not been printed, and then insists that I don't know HIM when I haven't made any statements suggesting such. I have sought to clarify his positions when I'm unsure where he's going. I don't feel he's given me the same consideration. I've said as much already.

Yet despite these troubles, I insist he's welcome here anytime he feels compelled to comment. As with any visitor, this doesn't mean he'll get special treatment. If I dont' agree with a comment I'll say so. If I think a comment is stupid, I'll say so and explain why. To me, this is what these little debates are all about. I don't take anything too personally and don't see why anyone should. There has yet to be any blatant verbal abuse by anyone to the degree that would invite a right cross were it to happen on the street. A little snarkiness, sarcasm, and some outright jabs are perfectly acceptable here.

My comments in that post were not so much a commentary on Geoffrey exactly, but as they were based on discussions between us at his blog, they were perfect for the point I was trying to make regarding the topic. But frankly, I don't see how the disparity between our views of sexuality is any different from our opposing positions on any other topic. He got hung up on my choice of words, words that were deliberately chosen for their descriptive nature. He chose to assume my use of the words chosen implied definitions and accusations not of my meaning.

I once called a really goofy poster at another blog a "putz" for the outlandishness of his views. They were pretty "out there" comments in my opinion. Others agreed, in fact. But this dude took a word that is defined as both a term for a horse's genitalia as well as a term to mean an idiot. He chose to inist that I was calling him a horse's penis, when I was using the more common meaning, that he is an idiot. Geoffrey has taken a similar path upon reading my usage of the term "bastard" to describe the nature of his great-grandmother's birth. Neil also thought it inappropriate. (ER did as well, but he's fond of Geoffrey) But though I've never heard of the horse connection for "putz", the actual definition of "bastard" is still in use as well as it's derogatory usage. Here, it would have served Geoffrey well to inquire as to my meaning, though since his telling of his family history came first, it's kind of insulting that he chose to take it as he did.

Nonetheless, I'm really quite sorry that it turned out as it did. I'm sorry that he has that tendency. I'm sorry that he took everything I said, as he has taken so much of what I have said since our meeting, so wrongly. I don't see how I can do this weighing each word for potential offense to someone, anyone, at any time, and still be able to express myself.

The bottom line is that although it might be moot at this point, Geoffrey is still welcome. If he thinks I'm a jerk, I can't change that opinion if he won't seek clarification for comments he finds offensive. I can't change it if he insists on assuming he understands whence I come when clearly he does not. But he is still welcome. It's just a freakin' blog.

Holiday Time!

With the day almost over, I want to wish all a very Happy Thanksgiving. I am grateful for all who visit and participate here. Despite recent tensions, I hold no hard feelings toward anyone and feel honored that anyone would spend any part of their day mixing it up with me. I'm amazed at how many comments come in and I appreciate each and every one of them and those who entered them.

Enjoy the day, thank the Lord, ignore the revisionists, eat, drink and be merry.

Yet More

From the AmericanThinker.com comes yet another Bruce Walker article regarding Nazism and Christianity. Check it out from today's posting.

More Nazi Stuff

I offer an article from today's American Thinker by Bruce Walker concerning Nazis and Christianity. (That would be 11/17/07) I thought it piggybacks well on my recent post regarding Nazis and Homosexuality, and it even helps to understand the previous info as well. I do this for the sake of any who insist on using Nazi Germany as an example of Christian oppression, which has always been a pathetically laughable postition for anyone to take. Anyone who understands Christianity at all has to admit that though there are examples of Christians committing atrocities, it is difficult to find any that can be traced to Scriptural teaching. I'm not saying Scripture isn't used in such a manner, but rather, that it can't be based on any accurate interpretations. The Word is often twisted for selfish means, but unlike Islam, there are no directives of any kind that can be reasonably interpreted to condone such oppression. This will provide a little something while I finish a rant on a different topic.

Apparently I'm Weird

I've been taking a lot of heat recently over at Geoffrey's blog, What's Left In The Church. The reason?

SEX

I like sex. I like it a lot. A whole lot. I like it very, very much. I enjoy it immensely and look forward to every opportunity. It's a wonderful way for a husband and wife to spend ten minutes.

OK, that last was a joke. I can go twelve, thirteen minutes easily. But the point is that it is between me and my wife. That's as it should be. Anything I did before marriage was not as it should be. Though it was fun.

But all jokes aside, at least for a bit, the problem I've been having at Geoff's, among others, is that I now am viewed by him and his, ah... um... "ilk" as something strange for the reason that I see sex for what it is, a selfish act of self-gratification. I see it, and the desire to engage in it, as the bane of our society. Geoffrey tells his very young daughter that it is a wonderful gift from God. I wonder if he feels the same for any spasm the body might produce. In any case, I requested Biblical support for that belief and at the time I began this post, I'd not seen such support. It's been a couple of days now, but perhaps he'll grace us with such here.

This discussion actually ran over a few of his posts, and without stopping here to go check for sure, I think it began at his post about JK Rowling "outing" Prof. Dumbledore. Naturally, this scholar of Biblical proportions thought that was just peachy and really nothing whatsoever over which anyone should have concern. I protested that I thought that such things are entirely inappropriate for young readers and why should such crap be put before them whilst they seek to enjoy their innocence. As it was not depicted openly in the books (from what I understand), what possible reason could there be for it anyway, except to promote the behavior as "normal"?

So began a back and forth about the goodness and holiness of sex and how it's natural and a beautiful thing that is shared in many different ways by many different people and how it's a wonderful expression of love.

CRAP AND NONSENSE!

But this is what he teaches his kids and as far as our debate, has expressed nothing regarding when it is appropriate and when it is sinful, which, for a semanarian and spouse of a preacher, seems rather lacking in the parental responsibility department. I don't know. Perhaps he simply neglected to add that to his rebuttal. I hope so. For as it sat, he's pretty much given his kid the green light to get it on as soon as she's up to it, with only some perceived feelings of love to justify it and make it "OK". And when, or if, she comes home pregnant with no ring nor license to show for it, why, he'll support her and not scold or say "I told you so" which he really couldn't say since he never did.

So here it is again, sex is NOT love. Sex is lust. End of story, really. We attach these lovely notions to the act for the sake of romance and all that, and truly, between spouses, it ain't so bad to do so. But it's a stark lie that society has come to embrace more and more over the years. Sex is a biological act with a specific purpose. The pleasure is a function of that act that ensures the act ever gets done and the species survives. But we have taken that pleasure and made it primary over the true purpose and now what are the consequences? They are many. Among them are:

*Over 40 million abortions since Roe v Wade. Those are of the surgical variety. Untold millions more from chemical abortions due to the use of birth control and morning after pills. A result of putting sex on such a high pedestal that it towers over the value of human life, as the spineless have chosen to redefine when life begins to accomodate their weakness.

*The proliference of STDs, with younger and younger sufferers all the time, including babies born with them due to their parents immaturity, as well as younger girls getting pregnant.

*High divorce rate and the invention of No Fault Divorce.

*The push to normalize abnormal relationships and behaviors.

*The rise in child abuse.

*Rap videos, internet porn and sex as a constant in advertizing, films and TV shows. This just compounds the issue as it gives credence to the nonsense of sex as being as necessary as food or sleep.

I was the subject of ridicule by Geoff and his friends, particularly his sister, the only one besides himself allowed to freely insult to whatever level she desires, for my use of the terms "crotch-centered" and "bastard".

It seems Geoff's grandmother is a bastard (or was it his great-grandmother? I forget. No matter.). Now that sounds harsh based on the common usage of the word today (I'm partial to the term "rat bastard"), but that she was born of two who were not married to each other justifies it's use, since that's the definition of the word. I asked him if he was proud to learn such about his great-grandparents (or was it great-great-grandparents? I forget. No matter.), that they engaged in sex without benefit of marriage. He never really answered the question, and I never implied that he should hate them for it. But that's the route he took and it shows he has no regard for the appropriate time and place for sex as dictated by traditional values and standards. This is where "crotch-centered" come into play. What else would you call someone who is so unwilling to control one's urges? The possibilities are many. Few are endearing.

The point is that engaging in sexual activity carries with it serious consequences. It is the dismissing of those consequences, redefining them, risking them even when acknowledging them, that is the cause of so much suffering in the world. Rather than making the world go 'round, as the romantics among us insist, it serves to make it grind (and I don't mean in an erotic way) as those consequences manifest when it is abused. When the sexual urge is allowed to define and/or control us, it diminishes us. As Christians, it results in spiritual impurity (and can even within a proper marriage), and as human beings, it makes us very much like animals who are unable to resist their instinctive drive.

The sexual urge is no different than many other urges that should be controlled if we are to call ourselves mature adults. The urge to take what doesn't belong to us, to strike those who offend us, to over eat, to avoid work, to gossip, to eat jello with our hands in the closet. How we respond to our urges demonstrates the level of our character. How our society now responds to the sexual urge has shown our character is lacking.

I challenged Geoffrey for he and his wife to abstain for a month. There's no reason why he should and as a married couple they certainly aren't obliged. I once suggested it to my wife as a Lenten sacrifice, and she was not up for it. For my part, there's little else that would seem a great sacrifice for such a ritual. But Geoffrey mocked that suggestion as well. OK. Fine. But that he wouldn't even consider it is telling. But it's a sad state of affairs if one can't or won't for such a brief period of time, even to honor one's Lord.

But I've rambled enough. I don't know if I've even made the point I was hoping to make. What I do know is that the consensus opinion of sex is harmful and the evidence is overwhelming that this is so. Mock me if you choose. It won't change the truth of it.