Why We Bristle at Talk of Multiculturalism

Words associated with Christianity, monarchy, and British history dropped from leading children’s dictionary:

Oxford University Press has removed words like “aisle”, “bishop”, “chapel”, “empire” and “monarch” from its Junior Dictionary and replaced them with words like “blog”, “broadband” and “celebrity”. Dozens of words related to the countryside have also been culled.

The publisher claims the changes have been made to reflect the fact that Britain is a modern, multicultural, multifaith society.

And what better way to show you’re a multifaith society than by ignoring one of those faiths?

               

Death of a Statesman – John Dingell

Warning: gzinflate() [function.gzinflate]: data error in /home/taylor12/public_html/christianandamerican.com/wp-includes/http.php on line 1787

When Democrat Henry Waxman of California launched his bid to oust fellow Democrat John Dingell from his chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Hill watchers in the know made two observations: First, they knew Waxman had the votes in his caucus because, like a good attorney, the politically astute Californian would never pose the question if he didn’t already know the answer.  Second, it signaled the beginning of the end of seniority in the House of Representatives.

John Dingell, born in 1926 and first elected to the House in 1955, is the closest thing to a statesman in a body whose membership runs for re-election every two years.  His 27 terms as a representative have earned him the distinction of being the Dean of the House – its most senior member.  Seniority means everything in the House – at least it did until Henry Waxman (a 17 termer himself) upset the applecart.  Seniority determines a member’s office, his seat at the committee, and is, in general, an indication of clout.

Unfortunately for Chairman Dingell, he is a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Detroit Democrat in Nancy Pelosi’s House.  This sort of dissent, it appears, will no longer be tolerated in the 111th Congress.  House Republicans view Chairman Dingell as someone they can work with.  Under his control, the Energy and Commerce Committee – which oversees 60% of all legislation – passed Republican bills and accepted Republican changes to Democratic iniatives.  Contrast this record of bi-partisanship with Chairman Waxman’s two years of impish delight in raking Bush Administration wrongdoers over the proverbial coals in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Waxman, who represents Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and Malibu, is expected to wield the Energy and Commerce Committee’s gavel as a club, bashing any opposition to liberal agendas perpetrated by Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.  Dingell’s ouster is a disappointment to many Americans who hoped the Democrats would govern from the center.  In fact, one high-ranking Republican called Dingell’s defeat a “body blow” to working families.

               

American Evangelicals and Left Behind

The Day I Got Left Behind

As unfounded as many of the theocracy accusations from the far-left are, American evangelicals, especially those raised on Left Behind theology, are facing some tough questions right now, and will face many more in the future… The Call of Duty Blog – http://www.codserver.org/

               

Leviticus, The Onion, and Homosexual Conduct

The Onion has a column in its current issue entitled, “I’m Not One Of Those ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ Christians.” Like many Onion articles it is funny and takes conventional rhetoric and twists it to reveal a truth. It lacks some of the subtler shades of nuance of many other Onion pieces, which is often the case for their pieces which focus on Christianity (no doubt because they are too unfamiliar with the subject matter to properly mimic the tell-tale details necessary for really good satire).

The premise of the column, as can likely be gleaned by the title, is that a Christian is defending herself from unfair stereotypes people have of Christians. The joke is that all the stereotypes she lists are things that are more or less universally admired about the Christian message (but which we often, it is assumed, do not regularly practice): love the neighbor, turn the other cheek, serve the poor, etc. The writer is clearly supposed to be a typical member of the Religious Right.

We’re not all “Jesus Freaks” who run around screaming about how everyone should “Judge not lest ye be judged,” whine “Blessed are the meek” all the time, or drone on and on about how we’re all equal in the eyes of God! Some of us are just trying to be good, honest folks who believe the unbaptized will roam the Earth for ages without the comfort of God’s love when Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior returns on Judgment Day to whisk the righteous off to heaven.

One line in particular is particularly revealing of how the Left views traditional Christians (and it gets to the main point of this post):

And although we believe that the moral precepts in the Book of Leviticus are the infallible word of God, it doesn’t mean we’re all obsessed with extremist notions like “righteousness” and “justice.”

What is it with the Left and the book of Leviticus? Time, and time again I hear defenders of homosexual activity make arguments premised on the idea that Christian opposition to sodomy is based on Levitical prohibitions. Usually such a person thinks they’ve really ended all discussion when they make some sort of snarky comment along the lines of, You must support the death penalty for people who wear polyester and cotton. This argument became especially popular after President Bartlett made it in the TV show the West Wing when he confronted a Laura Schlessinger clone.

Two things baffle me about this line of thought: First, where the heck did they get the idea that Leviticus is the basis upon which Christians oppose homosexual acts? Second, the basic understanding among almost all Christians that many of the rules of the Old Testament are no longer operative in Christianity is not an obscure or difficult to understand Christian doctrine – in fact it plays a pretty central role in the New Testament.

Regarding the first. I was raised in a fairly fundamentalist/evangelical Christian environment.  I heard little about the natural law, the procreative ends of the conjugal union, or even the traditional family as the basic cell of society. I did hear plenty of Biblical proof texts for what kind of behavior is right and what is wrong. I recall very little reference to the Old Testament when it came to homosexuality. There was some I guess, but for the most part we heard about the New Testament passages (there were several). I recognize that there is controversy surrounding the interpretation of these texts. And I recognize the perils of doing moral theology by means of proof texting. My point is only that the idea that Christian opposition to homosexual activity is rooted in a single Old Testament verse is absurd.

More baffling to me, is the seemingly complete ignorance those on the Left have of Christianity and its relationship to Old Testament law. I say this because to understand that Christians believe that certain obligations under Old Testament law were jettisoned with the life, death and resurrection of Christ does not require a high level of scholarship. It’s pretty much right there in any English translation of the New Testament. One need not know Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic to understand that Christians were no longer obligated to follow Jewish dietary restrictions. Extensive studies of biblical exegesis are not necessary to see that circumcision was no longer required. New Covenant/Old Covenant distinctions are pretty common among most practicing Christians.

Once again, my point is not to say that the relationship between the Mosaic law and Christianity is a simple subject. (Indeed I would commend Taylor’s own excellent work on the Jewish roots of our faith as an example of why ordinary Christians need and can greatly benefit from the solid and difficult scholarship of scholars.) What I am saying is that no Christian with halfway decent formation is going to find his whole world view shattered upon hearing some passages from Leviticus prohibiting conduct considered acceptable today.

I suppose what I really wonder is whether or not the Left is sincerely misguided as to Christian belief on the topic or if they are being entirely disingenuous when they make these arguments.

               

Debt is slavery

Warning: gzinflate() [function.gzinflate]: data error in /home/taylor12/public_html/christianandamerican.com/wp-includes/http.php on line 1787

The Gross National Debt of the United States:

Above is the National Debt of the United States of America. Every Senator, Congressman, and President should have this is as the screensaver on his or her computer.

Things for us to remember:

Precious treasure remains in a wise man’s dwelling,
but a foolish man devours it. (Proverbs 21:20 )

The rich rules over the poor,
and the borrower is the slave of the lender. (Proverbs 22:7)

               

Breaking News: Obama hires Emily’s List Executive Director

Warning: gzinflate() [function.gzinflate]: data error in /home/taylor12/public_html/christianandamerican.com/wp-includes/http.php on line 1787

The Politico reports that President-elect Barack Obama has asked Ellen Moran, currently Executive Director of EMILY’s List, to serve as his Communications Director – a senior staff position in the White House.

This appointment represents a troubling sign to those in the pro-life community who have hoped Mr. Obama’s outspoken support for abortion would be moderated by a need to bring the country together.  EMILY’s list is a political action committee (pac), which has raised over $240 million to elect pro-choice, Democratic women.

               

Election 2008 – Either way we dodged a bullet

The disappointment many of us felt on Election Night 2008 really began ten months prior – when John McCain made his unlikely comeback in New Hampshire on January 8th. He was never the best candidate to defeat Barack Obama, nor was he the best standard bearer for the conservative voice in America. Not by a long shot. He may be an American hero and an honorable man, but his inability to fully grasp (let alone articulate) the fundamentals of true conservatism weakened him with his base, and with the general electorate. Just ask yourself how many times, during the three Presidential debates, you found yourself screaming at the television incredulous at McCain’s refusal to stand up to Obama’s sophistry. Anyone who lets his wealth-spreading opponent get away with co-opting Republican “tax cutting” rhetoric doesn’t deserve to win. Now the President-Elect is “ready to rule on day one” and many of us (especially those of us who care about the Life issue) are deeply troubled. But I like silver linings. I need them. WIth McCain no longer in the position of being the de facto representative for conservatism, we now have a tremendous opportunity. It’s time for us to purge our ranks, relearn what it means to be a consistent social and economic conservative and look for new and persuasive ways to not just articulate, but implement conservative principles on the ground. When those ideals are actually applied, not just touted, you get real results. But enough about Bobby Jindal.

The point is this: we dodged a bullet either way. To be sure, the bullet of Barack hurts far more than would have that of McCain and we’ll suffer longer because of it. But let’s not forget, from the ashes of Jimmy Carter rose Ronald Reagan. We mustn’t squander this opportunity to refine.

               

Alexandra Windsor Considers Obama’s Victory

There is much to be said about Barack Obama’s win last night. The
breadth of his ambition and the enormity of his political talents have
been underestimated from the start of his campaign. And I believe
what happen last night represents a real and long-lasting change in
America. But for now I will not dwell or expound on that. I wish
instead to return to the topic of abortion – the same, old, tired
topic that most people would be happy to never hear about again. That
topic that seems to have been written about over and over by Christian
conservatives this election. These are not new insights but here is a
short summary of where we stand:

- Every year between 1.2 and 1.3 million humans are killed in our
country by an act that is not only tolerated but protected as a
constitutional right – a right so important to protect, says the high
court, that states have no interest in interfering with it in almost
all instances.

- This is the case because of the Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and
Doe v. Bolton.

- Last night’s election put a man into office who will almost
certainly effect the composition of the Supreme Court in such a way
that Roe and Doe will remain in force for the foreseeable future.

- And in that time, more than 1 million humans a year will be legally
killed on an annual basis.

- That this happens is not the fault of the small minority who boldly
proclaim their support for abortion rights. It is the fault of the
hundreds of millions of Americans who regularly say, “I’m personally
against it but . . .” Those hundreds of millions of Americans who
would just prefer not to bring it up – to not have to think about it.
They are moral cowards and because of their cowardice a million humans
will die this year.

I have been pondering all this now for the last 24 hours and I find it
very, very sobering.

               

John McCain on SNL (Saturday Night Live)

These videos of McCain on SNL with Tina Fey are so funny! You’ve got to watch them. (They make take four or five seconds to load…)

This one is my favorite:

And an interview with John and Cindy with an excellent clip of McCain impersonated Barbara Streisand:

               

Practicing Wealth Redistribution (Humor)

We need to start practicing for the future of our country…

Here is a creative approach to redistribution of wealth as offered in a local newspaper…

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read ‘Vote Obama, I need the money.’ I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a ‘Obama 08′ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed to be more in need–the homeless guy outside.

The server angrily stormed out from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was very grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

               

« Previous Page — Next Page »