No Surprise Here

A brief AmericanThinker piece reports a broken plot on Spain by AlQueda. The punchline of course is what most on the right plainly understand, and about which few on the left, particularly the Dem candidates, have the slightest clue: dealing with terrorists. Why would they again attack Spain after Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq?

Let's Try This Again

My post below entitled "Don't Tell ME What To Do" turned into another debate on homosexual rights. Not what I had hoped for it. So this thread is strictly to deal with the subject of the alleged attempts of Christians to control. I don't feel such allegations are warranted in the least. Thus, I offer the chance for any to relate anything that might serve as an example.

It's Like I Was Sayin'

This piece from American Thinker echoes perfectly what I've been saying all along. About seven years younger than the author, I recall a hippy chick on the school newspaper lamenting the principle's blocking of ads for abortion clinics in the periodical. Always the last to know, it was then I had confirmed exactly what an abortion was, though I had suspicions prior. I could not believe such things were considered by good people ("good" being a relative term). And though the notion of "bad girls" had already begun changing drastically (early '70s), I knew of no one who had had the procedure. Considering all that has come along since in the realm of human sexuality in America (and the world), the heinous quality of the Roe v Wade decision has grown by magnitudes. Lord have mercy on us.

Another Heathen Denier

I may not have a science degree. I may not understand all that can be found in a typical peer-reviewed paper. There is much with which I could not keep up in discussions with intellectuals well versed in global warming details. But I do know that intelligent people from many disciplines of science have serious problems with the man-made global warming alarmists. Here is yet another example. If Geoffrey can pocket his disdain for my distasteful manner, perhaps he and his friend would like to show how this piece is a piece of, uh, something distasteful. For me, I'll have to re-read it a few more times, what with my lack of scientific understanding and all.

I Took The Quiz

Which Great US President Are You Most Like?
You scored as a Ronald Reagan
40th President, in office from 1981-1989 Born: 1911 Died: 2004
Ronald Reagan
83%
Dwight Eisenhower
71%
Theodore Roosevelt
67%
George Washington
64%
Franklin Roosevelt
60%
Abraham Lincoln
59%
John Kennedy
57%
Thomas Jefferson
52%
Lyndon Johnson
48%
Harry Truman
43%
Woodrow Wilson
43%

Very cool. I matched with Reagan. The quiz is found here

War? What War?

The title of this post is from today's AmericanThinker. I totally agree with the sentiments of the piece and it can be found here. It also doubles as another test post as I try another hyperlink exercise. I hope it works.

In any case, I think the piece is a fair warning for those who have placed the war on a lower place on their list of important things to consider when selecting a candidate. Talk now is of the economy being at the top of the list. (Much further down than second place for Dems. That's because they're goofy.) The fight against the fanatics who see us as targets is ongoing despite the good news from Iraq. What kind of catastrophe must they visit upon us here that will remind the nation of that fact?

Duncan's Done

Too bad. Too bad also that Thompson didn't do better in S. Carolina. Someday we will have a conservative that can articulate conservative principles and ideals in a manner that even many of the looney left can understand. Until then, we have to go with cheap imitations. Moderates like McCain are no help to the nation in the long haul. Just a step or two above the average Democrat. We have to do better. We have to jump hard on those who think they understand what conservatism is all about and then show by their distorted rhetoric that they have no idea.

Still, when crunch time comes, and some form of "conservative lite" is the party nominee, I will support him. There is not one Dem running that is worthy of the presidency, and this country deserves far better than what the Dems would do to America.

A Test Post With Substance

I've been visiting blogs for quite awhile, and you can see when I started my own. In all that time I didn't know how to use hyper-links, and didn't care to try to learn on my own. So the Game, who is a teacher, taught me using, per my request, language a small child could understand. It has gotten me this far which is miles beyond where I had been. Next, I'll be learning how to make the titles of my posts a link to articles to be discussed in the comments section, as Game does at his blog which is listed among the blogs to the left (Right From The Right). I'm so excited.

So, I've linked to the article below, which is a review of a new Norman Podhoretz book. It looks like a book I'll be likely to purchase at some point, but the review contains enough from it for the purposes of discussion. Looks as though Podhoretz, a guy who's perspective I've always enjoyed and respected, has nailed it.

http://http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/world_war_iv_a_military_perspe.html

Don't Tell ME What To Do!

This topic is by request of a friend known only through the blogosphere. I hope I address it suitably and it is about the accusation by some that Christians seek to control others. Indeed, this accusation eminates also from other, more liberal Christians of those more conservative. It is baseless either way.

Christians of the more conservative variety seek to spread the Word of God in order to glorify Him. It is done by evangelism and preaching what the Word of God is and means for us in our day to day lives. I personally belive that everyone benefits who lives a Christian life whether one believes in a deity or not. I believe a society benefits as more of its people follow Christian teaching regarding behaviors. In fact, I believe the only proper response to the preceding statements is as follows: DUH!

I often gravitate to issues of sexuality because there is no better arena where the beliefs stated above are so well illustrated. As everyone knows, the Bible sanctions sex only within the confines of the traditional marital arrangement of one man/one woman. If this was followed by everyone, as well as the Biblical description of what love means in a marriage, is it not easy to see how society would be better off? No divorce, no unwanted children, no STDs, no abortions, no Monday night football (wait a minute...) So the Christian desire to see all follow the Way of the Master is a desire that all should benefit by doing so.

But this hardly means we intend to control or force others to join in lockstep under a malevolent God or religious leader. Heaven forbid. This is not beneficial. Rather, we seek to persuade only and hope our arguments are compelling enough that others join us willingly. God gave us choice and free will. We only seek to provide intel that would lead to others making the choice to follow of their own free will

So why the charge? Two main reasons, really. The first is that some enjoy certain activities God considers improper and/or forbidden to us. They simply don't want to stop enjoying them.

The second is that while they continue to enjoy these forbidden activities, they don't want to be considered wrong, bad, sinful, and strongly resent such implications. Of course, for most of them, theydo believe those actions are wrong and their anger betrays this. As the person reminding them of the sinfulness of the actions, the Christian is considered to be "trying to shove their ideology down their throats".

In addition, it is far easier to dismiss the source of the opinion, in this case the Bible, rather than to debate the merits of the position. As indicated above, there are indeed practical benefits for society in adhering to Christian teaching. But those insisting on answering the call of their personal desires are confounded by any reminder of what they know inherently about those desires. The admonishment, "Shame on you!" has long fallen from favor, but the nagging feelings of shame still plagues and to whomever aroused that sense of shame in the sinner is guilty of cramping of the style. A most heinous crime. But consider: most people who are secure in the knowledge that their actions are righteous cannot easily be aroused to anger by those who say they are doing wrong. They simply ignore the accuser. Those who get angry do so for having been forced to face the unrighteousness of their actions. A very awkward and uncomfortable situation.

Also, Christians are also labelled as controlling for voting according to conscience. We'll vote to support traditional marriage, for example, because we feel it aligns with the Will of God as well as for the benefits for society in doing so. The accusation begs the question of why the opposition isn't being controlling for voting as they see fit? Frankly, I don't much care about the source of an idea if the idea is a good one and I don't care about the source if the idea is crap. Each side weighs an idea against their own ideology and common sense.

So in conclusion, charges of Christians forcing their will are really akin to tantrums by those who understand that their position on a given issue is indefensible, just as a child throws a fit when he doesn't get his way.