No comment department

Politically, I lean very much to the right, but I have always thought there is something a little creepy about Ted Cruz. His deplorable behavior at the recent In Defense of Christians gathering provided a moment of clarity, confronting evangelical Christians with the choice of remaining true to the faith they confess or following the carnival barkers of "movement conservatism" off the ideological cliff. Now, to the surprise of no one who knows the background story behind this whole sorry episode, Cruz has poured salt into the wounds he inflicted on persecuted Middle East Christians by emblazoning this banner across his website.

It is hardly necessary to dignify such naked political opportunism with any further comment, especially since Rod Dreher has already done an excellent job of filling in all the details.

Roe at 41: A lie by any other name is still a lie

Euphemisms and shibboleths are rhetorical devices employed by persons who wish to create their own reality rather than accept reality as created. They are words and phrases which paint a false picture of a false world built upon one lie after another.

Over the last 41 years, the radical abortion culture unleashed by Roe v. Wade has become quite adept at churning out both euphemisms ("pro-choice," "right to choose," "reproductive freedom") and shibboleths ("anti-choice," "war on women"), all crafted to create an alternate reality in which good is evil and evil is good. As thousands were turning out in Washington for today's March for Life, the abortion culture was reaching a new low in its self-delusion through the words of the nation's chief executive.

Matthew Schmitz dissects President Obama's brief statement on the 41st anniversary of Roe, eviscerating its numerous euphemisms, evasions, and outright lies.

1. “We” — The statement begins by saying “as we reflect” on Roe “we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle.” But who is this we? Obama issues his statement in his official capacity as head of state, but America is sorely divided. By a generous measure, only 53 percent of Americans support Roe. When Obama pledges his rhetorical “we” to the principle of Roe, he elides one half of the nation he leads.

2. “Her body” — The President says that “every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.” This statement would certainly be true (given a few broad caveats) if he did not mean by it that one person should be able to dismantle the body and destroy the health of another.

3. “Safe, affordable health care” — For abortion to be safe, it would have to not be directed at the death of a child; for it to be affordable, it would have to not come at the cost of a life; for it to be health care, it would have to not violate the Hippocratic oath. This may be one lie or three—it’s hard to keep count.

4. “Right to privacy” — There can be no right to the taking of an innocent life. Nor can there be anything private about it for a society that believes securing rights to be a matter of the public good.

5. “Reproductive freedom” — There is no debate over the freedom of reproduction, only over the freedom of destruction.

6. “Unintended pregnancy” — What is meant here, of course, is an unintended child. But in any case, the idea that life is legitimate only when it is the product of our intentions—that everything should be perfectly “planned”—is at once impossible and perverse, a sociological error reflecting a theological mistake.

7. “Child health” — President Obama’s purported support for child health runs counter to his continuing, unrepented opposition to laws banning infanticide—an opposition that distinguishes him not only from abortion opponents but from most abortion supporters as well.

8. “This is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.” — This is indeed such a country, as is every other. Why then, Mr. President, do you continue to stand in the way of the very weakest realizing the equal freedom you so blithely invoke?

Number 8 is particularly egregious in that it is dripping with bloody irony and sickening hypocrisy (not that the whole statement isn't sickening enough in itself). As long as abortion is upheld as a "fundamental right," the weakest among us will be denied the most fundamental right of all -- and no amount of evasion, obfuscation, or rhetorical gymnastics will ever hide the still festering wound upon the conscience of our nation. A lie by any other name is still a lie; and murder by any other name is still murder.

Further reading: David Fischler's take at Stand Firm.

Brit Hume's commentary, also noting the outrageous euphemisms of abortion supporters.

What is "sacred ground" for the "practicing and respectful Catholic," Nancy Pelosi?

You can't make this stuff up, folks!

“As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this,” Pelosi said about efforts to stop late-term abortions. “This shouldn’t have anything to do with politics.”

At the risk of stating the blatantly obvious, if you have to keep reminding people that you are "a practicing and respectful Catholic," you are, in all likelihood, none of the above.

You can't make this stuff up: Bill Clinton named "Father of the Year"

Only in America . . .

 

(Becket Adams) Former U.S. President Bill Clinton is officially 2013’s “Father of the Year” thanks to an award Tuesday from the non-profit National Father’s Day Council.

“Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, was just 12 years old when the family moved into the White House and Bill Clinton and wife former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton worked to keep her out of the limelight,” Reuters gushes.

“One of the most iconic images of the family to come out of that period was when the three were photographed, walking hand in hand across the White House lawn to a waiting helicopter shortly after the news broke of Bill Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky,” the Reuters report adds, perhaps missing the irony of bringing up the president’s infamous sexual appetite in a story about his “Father of the Year” award.

Really makes you long for the "good ol' days," doesn't it?

Obama (and McCain)-backed Syrian rebels engaging in “ethnic cleansing” of Christians

Let's not beat around the bush here. The U.S. government's support of Islamist rebels in Syria is a bi-partisan scandal of epic proportions.

Armed Islamist rebel groups in Syria supported by the Obama administration [and Arizona Republican Senator John McCain] and Western governments seeking to oust “President” Bashir al-Assad are engaged in “ethnic cleansing” of Christians, according to news reports and human rights organizations. And as the conflict escalates, the persecution of the once-protected Christian minority is growing as well.

The Syrian Orthodox Church, which represents over half of Syrian Christians, issued a statement saying revolutionary fighters had expelled some 50,000 Christians from the embattled city of Homs. That figure is estimated to account for about 90 percent of the Christian community there. Hundreds more — including women and children — were slaughtered, according to charitable organizations operating in the area.

The Orthodox Church referred to the persecution as the "ongoing ethnic cleansing of Christians" by Muslim militants linked to al Qaeda. According to its report, the so-called “Brigade Faruq” is largely to blame, with Islamic extremists going door to door and forcing followers of Christ to leave without even collecting their belongings. Their property is then stolen by rebels as "war-booty from the Christians."

Christians in Homs were reportedly told that if they did not leave immediately, they would be shot. Then, pictures of their bodies would be sent to the pro-Syrian-regime-change Al Jazeera — a media broadcaster controlled by the dictatorship ruling Qatar — with a message claiming that forces loyal to Assad had murdered them.

"Christians are being forced to flee the city to the safety of government-controlled areas,” noted a spokesman for the Christian relief agency Barnabas Fund, which reported that over 200 Christians had been murdered by insurgents. “Muslim rebel fighters and their families are taking over their homes."

Other reports noted that Christians were being kidnapped by rebels for use as human shields. "Some Christians who tried to escape a week ago were stopped from leaving by the rebels and were instead forced to go to a mosque to act as shields," a Syrian priest from Hamidiya was quoted as saying by the Daily Telegraph. "They thought that, because Christians support Assad, the government would not attack them."

According to reports from sources on the ground, Muslim militias also used churches to attack government forces. “[M]ost of the time militiamen were using the churches and the Christians as shields to protect themselves from shelling,” explained regional director Issam Bishara with the Catholic Near East Welfare Association (CNEWA). “It is also important to mention that some icons inside the churches were damaged on purpose by the militias.”

One possible motive cited by analysts for the ongoing persecution is the fact that Syrian Christians largely support the Assad regime, fearing genocide if their protector were to fall at the hands of Islamic extremists. The secular Syrian strongman, despite ruling the nation with an iron fist, is known for protecting Christians and other minorities.

Church leaders in Syria have largely urged their parishioners not to take sides in the conflict. Because Christians make up only around 10 percent of the population of Syria — with Sunni Muslims accounting for about 80 percent — there is widespread concern over what might come next in the civil war.

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has documented a wide array of abuses committed by the regime. However, it also reported last month that the rebels were kidnapping, torturing, and executing perceived opponents — and not just Christians.

“We are writing to express our concern about increasing evidence … of kidnappings, the use of torture, and executions by armed Syrian opposition members,” Executive Director Sarah Leah Whitson of the group's Middle East & North Africa division wrote in an open letter to the rebels, urging them to stop engaging in the “unlawful” practices.

The group also said civilians had been targeted and that some of the attacks appeared to be motivated by sectarianism. Citing a United Nations-mandated “Commission of Inquiry” report on Syria, the organization noted that the armed rebels “have committed gross human rights abuses.” Those crimes include kidnapping, execution, and displacement of civilians — mostly members of minority groups or perceived supporters of the Assad regime.

After the U.S. invasion, Christians in Iraq were viciously slaughtered by various factions. The ancient communities there — which had survived for almost 2,000 years — are now almost gone. In fact, according to most estimates, the population of Christians in Iraq has declined by two thirds or more. And many of those who successfully fled went to Syria, where they now face an uncertain fate once again.

The chaos in Syria, which borders Iraq, began more than a year ago when armed militants among groups of protesters killed police, burned down government buildings, and more. The Assad regime responded by deploying the military to quash the unrest in what observers said was a brutal and bloody crackdown on dissent. Almost 10,000 people have already been killed in the clashes, according to estimates.

But analysts say that if the rebellion succeeds in toppling Assad — which at this point remains uncertain, as the Russian and Iranian governments continue to support their ally — Syria will likely go the way of other nations afflicted by the so-called “Arab Spring.” Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and even more extreme groups are likely to seize power, with dire implications for freedom — and especially for the Christian minority.

The Obama administration, Western leaders, Arab dictatorships, and the chief of al Qaeda have all publicly expressed support for the rebels. Various forms of aid are also flowing to opposition forces from an assortment of governments and terror groups. The U.K. has even been openly shoveling tax money at the rebels despite concerns expressed by some Christian members of Parliament.

“A great many have taken refuge in neighboring Syria in which, despite the heavy-handed nature of its dictatorial regime, Christians (and indeed Jews) have found an oasis of relative calm until hit by the recent stirrings of the Arab Spring,” wrote MP Edward Leigh, blasting recent attacks and murders of Christians in the nation — many of whom found asylum there after Islamist forces were unleashed in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. He also warned that thousands of Christians could be killed if Assad falls.

“Christians are currently engaged in almost every aspect of public life in Syria. Can we realistically expect this to continue under an Islamist government with democratic legitimacy?” Leigh wondered. “As we are now witnessing beatings, abductions, and xenophobic killings in free Libya, the West must be forced to acknowledge the pernicious edge of our liberal internationalist foreign policy.”

The UN, meanwhile, sought to pass a resolution demanding “regime change” in Syria, but the measure was vetoed in the Security Council by the Russian and Chinese governments — citing the recent NATO- and Islamist-backed bloodbath in Libya. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed to redouble the administration’s efforts to topple Assad anyway, proposing an international coalition to do the job.

Late last month, Obama was publicly considering sending “aid” to the Syrian rebels. And over the weekend, an assortment of governments, including the United States, announced that they would be sending millions of dollars.

According to more than a few analysts, reports, and experts, however, the administration and its allies around the world have been backing the Syrian uprising from the start. Humanitarian and relief agencies, meanwhile, are seeking aid for the growing number of displaced Christians.

Pray for the Christians in Syria.

West Indies bishops denounce blackmail attempt by Obama, Cameron to force acceptance of "gay rights"

It is truly a despicable thing when the two ostensibly most "civilized" nations in the world attempt to impose an immoral, and patently uncivilized, agenda upon developing nations under the guise of promoting "human rights." The Anglican bishops of the West Indies have urged their government to resist efforts by U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron to blackmail their country into caving to the "gay rights" movement.

George Conger reports for Anglican Ink:

The Anglican bishops of the West Indies have urged their governments to hold fast and resist pressure from Britain and the United States to legalize gay rights and gay marriage.

In a statement released on 25 April 2013 following the House of Bishops meeting in Barbados, bishops of the Church the Province of the West Indies (CPWI) reiterated their belief in marriage “definedas a faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman.”

“The idea of such unions being constituted by persons of the same sex is, therefore, totally unacceptable on theological and cultural grounds,” the bishops said. The CPWI consists of eight dioceses: the Diocese of Barbados, the Diocese of Belize, the Diocese of Guyana, the Diocese of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands, the Diocese of the Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Diocese of the North Eastern Caribbean and Aruba, the Diocese of Trinidad and Tobago and the Diocese of the Windward Islands.

The 23 active and retired members of the house of bishops observed that the push to redefine marriage was coming from abroad. There have been “trends within countries of the developing world and international forums, and in which these countries exercise a controlling interest, in which matters related to human sexuality have been elevated to the level of human rights and are being promulgated as positions which must be accepted globally.”

Failure to exceed to these new orthodoxies “results in the threat of various sanctions, including the withholding of economic aid,” they said, explaining that there has been in the US and Europe “a re-definition of gender to accommodate gay, lesbian and transgendered people, and the creation of a plurality of definitions which leaves the issue of gender to self-definition, thereby dismissing traditional definition of male and female.”

This was accompanied by the “passage of legislation among a number of metropolitan nations whereby marriage is defined as a human right in which any two persons may be joined, inclusive of persons of the same sex. The ‘marriage’ of persons of the same sex is justified as a human right on the basis of marital equality with heterosexual unions.”

Government had no authority to define marriage, but should provide the“legal framework for protecting” marriage while also protecting homosexuals “against abuse and injustice.”

Pressure on Caribbean political leaders to act according to the dictates of the political and moral sensibilities of overseas governments was intolerable they said. “The dangling of a carrot of economic assistance to faltering economies should be seen for what it is worth and should be resisted by people and government alike.”

Nor was the West in a position to dictate its morality to the people Caribbean.

“The threat and use of economic sanctions are not new experiences for us, neither is the claim to a superior morality convincing for peoples who have known the experience of chattel slavery in our past. While claiming to invoke human rights as the basis for such imposition, we submit that the same principle must allow us the right to affirm our cultural and religious convictions regarding our definitions of that most basic of social institutions, marriage,” the bishops said.

On 6 Dec 2011 the White House released a memorandum from Pres. Barack Obama entitled “International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Persons” that directed US government agencies to push the administration’s support for the gay agenda working with overseas governments and organizations.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron at the October 2011 Commonwealth heads of Government meeting in Australia threatened countries that ban homosexuality with losing aid payments unless they conformed to his government’s standards.

Lord, have mercy upon us.
Christ, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.

Taking the Lord's name in vain and our national culpability

Via LifeNews.com:

During his speech to the Planned Parenthood abortion business today, President Barack Obama asked God to bless the number one abortion performer in the United States.

Here is how he ended his speech:

“As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way,” said Obama. “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

There is a term for invoking the name of the Almighty so carelessly (and flippantly) to imply a "blessing" upon an organization responsible for the murder of millions of innocent children.

It is called taking the Lord's name in vain. It is a particularly grievous sin which God, who is quite zealous about the appropriate invocation of his name, takes quite seriously.

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. (Exodus 20:7 ESV)

Moreover, the implication that an evil organization like Planned Parenthood is somehow worthy of divine blessing calls to mind another rather explicit Scriptural passage.

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!

(Isaiah 5:20 ESV) 

Still, before we rush to throw stones at President Obama, let us consider our own culpability. The fact that we as a nation have raised up a leader who can be so careless in invoking the Lord's name, and so callous in disregarding the lives of the innocent, is more an indictment on us as a nation than it is on the leader we have raised up.

Lord, have mercy upon us. 
Christ, have mercy upon us. 
Lord, have mercy upon us.

Timely Re-post: Mark Sanford and the failure of pop culture evangelicalism

[NOTE: This article was originally posted on June 30, 2009. In light of recent events, I think it is appropriate to re-post it at this time.]

Pop culture mythology portrays "evangelical Christians," lumped together under the umbrella of the "Religious Right," as a potent--even dangerous--force in American politics. In reality, however, the "evangelicalism" so often maligned by the pop culture is largely a product of that culture itself. From the outmoded escapist fantasies of "rapture ready" dispensationalism to the trendy fads of the "Emergent Church," the similarities between pop culture evangelicalism and genuine Christianity are few and far between.

A stinging indictment against one of the major shortcomings of pop culture evangelicalism is the sorry episode involving South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. As Lloyd Fonvielle sees it, Sanford's "culture" failed him.

Sanford's case feels more complex, and interesting. He's clearly still in love with his Argentinian bombshell, if by love we mean the pussy-fever associated with a new and transgressive sexual relationship. Some failing in the right-wing Christian culture he inhabits seems to have left him unprepared to deal with the power of that fever -- you get a sense he was blindsided by it, and is still reeling from the blow.

Perhaps there is something about the rhetoric of his culture that minimizes the exaltation of sexual love, relating it too exclusively to law and duty, downplaying its delirious joy, leaving the members of that culture defenseless when the real thing emerges or re-emerges in their lives.

When it comes to adultery, I'm agin' it -- I don't see it as a "pecadillo" but as a profound, existentially crippling moral failing . . . yet at the same time less about the sex involved than about a violation of trust that can almost literally rip the heart out of a partner. No amount of personal pleasure or fulfillment can justify it, but you need to have a healthy appreciation of just how much personal pleasure and fulfillment it can deliver to know what you're up against when it presents itself.

I don't think Mark Sanford had a clue. In his e-mails to his mistress he sounds like a lovesick and somewhat bewildered teenager. How did he get to the age of 49 in that condition of emotional immaturity?

The particular "failing in the right wing Christian culture" here is a view of sin as merely the violation of a moral law ("God's law," to use one of Sanford's favorite terms) with little or no emphasis on the larger problem of depravity being the natural state of the fallen human condition. This is an essentially Pelagian view which reduces repentance to little more than saying, "I'm sorry and I'll try to do better next time." There is no need for divine grace, just a more earnest human effort to try harder to stay out of trouble. But trouble will always find you if you rely on your own strength, rather than on the grace of God alone, which awakens true repentance and a radical change of heart and mind.

Pop culture evangelicalism is hardly the monolithic monster so foolishly feared by the cultural left. Its minimalist expression of the faith will never transform even one individual, much less an entire culture.

This pretty much says it all

Maybe Obama was the lesser of two evils, after all

Wannabe Anglican reports on the latest expulsion of verbiage from the oral cavity of John McCain.

I’m sure glad I had CNBC on just now. Without being asked about the Citizens United ruling, Sen. John McCain volunteered that the said ruling is “the most disgraceful decision of the United States Supreme Court in my memory out of naiveté and ignorance and stupidity.”

So Roe v. Wade is not a worse ruling? So he insults the Supreme Court because it cares more about defending free speech than he?

I am floored by this statement. It will be interesting to see if there is any fall out from this.

I doubt there will be much fallout since no one really cares what McCain says anymore. This is, after all, a man who, because of his own "naivete and ignorance and stupidity" couldn't beat a neophyte Chicago politician named Barack Obama. In hindsight, maybe we did end up with the lesser of two evils.

NYC Food Police target homeless shelters

This is what happens when a government executive with an open disdain for all things religious shoves his benevolent fist down the citizens' charitable throats.

So much for serving the homeless. 

The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term “food police” to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless.

In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans.

For over a decade, Glenn Richter and his wife, Lenore, have led a team of food-delivery volunteers from Ohab Zedek, the Upper West Side Orthodox congregation.

They’ve brought freshly cooked, nutrient-rich surplus foods from synagogue events to homeless facilities in the neighborhood. (Disclosure: I know the food is so tasty because I’ve eaten it — I’m an OZ member.) The practice of donating such surplus food to homeless shelters is common among houses of worship in the city.

DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond says the ban on food donations is consistent with Mayor Bloomberg’s emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. A new interagency document controls what can be served at facilities — dictating serving sizes as well as salt, fat and calorie contents, plus fiber minimums and condiment recommendations.

The city also cites food-safety issues with donations, but it’s clear that the real driver behind the ban is the Bloomberg dietary diktats.

Diamond insists that the institutional vendors hired by the shelters serve food that meets the rules but also tastes good; it just isn’t too salty. So, says the commissioner, the homeless really don’t need any of the synagogue’s food.

Glenn Richter’s experience suggests otherwise. He says the beneficiaries — many of them senior citizens recovering from drug and alcohol abuse — have always been appreciative of the treats he and other OZ members bring.

It’s not just that the donations offer an enjoyable addition to the “official” low-salt fare; knowing that the food comes from volunteers and community members warms their hearts, not just their stomachs.

So you can imagine Richter’s consternation last month when employees at a local shelter turned away food he brought from a bar mitzvah.

He’s a former city Housing Authority employee, and his wife spent 35 years as a South Bronx public-school teacher, so they’re no strangers to bureaucracy and poverty. But an exasperated Richter says, “This level of micromanagement is stunning.”

Says Rabbi Allen Schwartz of Ohav Zedek, “Jews have been eating chulent and kugel for a long time, and somehow we’ve managed to live long and healthy lives. All we want to do is to continue sharing these bounties with our neighbors.”

This is very different from another recent high-profile food-police case. When a North Carolina prekindergarten aide took away a 4-year-old’s home-packed lunch last month, the school defused the incident by blaming a teacher’s bad judgment.

Here, there’s no teacher to scapegoat. The ban on food donations is the direct result of work by many city agencies, all led by a mayoral task force.

Fine, the city’s making enough nutritious food available to our homeless. (Court mandates require it.) But that’s no excuse for turning away charity that brings a tiny bit of joy into these lives.

The Bloomberg administration is so obsessed with meddling in how we all live that it’s now eating away at the very best that New York citizens have to deliver.

The audacious offensive of love

Conventional wisdom, fueled by pompous comedians and other uninformed sources, holds that audience members at Monday night's Republican debate in South Carolina "booed the golden rule." Candidate Ron Paul bore the brunt of audience displeasure by suggesting a "golden rule of foreign policy," not doing to other countries what we don't want them to do to us.

Like so many politicians who attempt to invoke biblical metaphors, Congressman Paul did not do his homework here. Likewise, media personalities who have made hay over South Carolina voters "booing the golden rule" have failed in their responsibility to do adequate biblical fact-checking. The "golden rule," stated by Jesus in Matthew 7:12 is traditionally rendered (in King James language), "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," not "Don't do unto others what you wouldn't have them do unto you." The difference is subtle, but profound.

Any number of ancient philosophers taught a negative ethic of refraining from doing evil to others in the hope that others would reciprocate. Jesus, however, taught something wholly different, and quite revolutionary. The ethic of the kingdom of God is not passively refraining from doing evil in hope of reciprocation, but actively seeking to do good without regard for what others might do in return. The former is rooted in a desire for self-preservation; the latter in a devotion to giving oneself in selfless service to others.

E. Stanley Jones, the great missionary to India, was well acquainted with the passive resistance ethic of Ghandi. He was convinced, however, that Jesus taught a higher ethic. In his classic exposition, The Christ of the Mount, he makes the case for active resistance as the true ethic of Jesus and the kingdom of God.

Jesus is not teaching passive resistance, but an active resistance on a higher level. The account does not say, "If a man smite you on one cheek, let him smite the other also," but it does say, "Turn to him the other also." It is this audacious offensive of love that forces the man to go further and thus break down. He tries to break your head, and you, as Christian, try to break his heart. In turning the other cheek you wrest the offensive from him and assume moral charge of the situation. You choose your own battleground, and your own weapons, you refuse his and compel him to stand on ground with which he is not familiar and to face weapons he does not know how to face. If a man compels you to go with him one mile, you are his slave; but if you voluntarily go with him two, then you rise from your slavery, confer a bounty on him and thus become his master. If he sues you at law and takes away your coat, you are his servant, but if you confer on him your cloak also, you assume the mastery by your own moral daring.

Allowing a man to smite you on one cheek, and letting him have the coat, and submitting to him when he compels you to go one mile does little or no good. The fact is that it does harm to the man who does it and to the man who submits to it. It is the other cheek, the cloak also and the second mile that do the trick. It is this plus that turns the scale. The one cheek, the coat and the one mile--this is passive resistance; but turning the other cheek, giving the cloak also and going the second mile--this is active resistance on the plane of unquenchable good will. Passive resistance may reveal nothing but weakness; this active resistance of love reveals nothing but strength.

Bob Beckel's Bible boondoggle

For many years, I have been willing to give Bob Beckel, a former Democrat party operative turned television political commentator, the benefit of the doubt. Notwithstanding his political views, with which I strongly disagree, Beckel has a compelling testimony about overcoming alcohol and substance abuse. So compelling, in fact, that I theorized his over-the-top liberal persona was merely an act played out on television for the entertainment of cable news audiences. Today, however, on Fox's new panel program The Five, he made a statement so monumentally ignorant that my (admittedly charitable) theory was blown to smithereens.

Speaking in his usual snarky tone, Beckel criticized Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) for citing Jesus as his inspiration for calling for a day of prayer and fasting for the nation on August 6. "I'd like to know, Governor Perry, where Jesus fasted in the New Testament," Beckel demanded. "I think I might have missed that."

Well, Bob, you don't have to look very far in the New Testament to find what you "missed."

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. (Matthew 4.1-2)

Hmmm. Jesus fasted forty days and forty nights during his wilderness temptation experience, which preceded the inauguration of his earthly ministry. That should strike even the most cursory reader of Scripture as pretty significant. If Beckel "might have missed that," then he "might have missed" quite a bit.

Cognitive dissonance: It's the same old liberal song

A few years back, I made a few random observations about the misleading use of the term "progressive" by those of the liberal persuasion.

Is it a sign of "progress" to embrace behaviors, practices, and worldviews which the civilized world has rejected for some two millennia? In ancient times, the Christians were the true "progressives." They looked upon a world awash in decadence and licentiousness and boldly declared there was a better way than the way of temple prostitution and drunken debauchery. A world which embraced such godless misbehavior was a world that was passing away. A new world was coming into being in which the holiness of God would be the order of the day and those who would be a part of it were called to turn away from the temporal pleasures of the flesh and begin living here and now as though this world had passed away and the new world had already begun.

Whenever present-day liberals embrace the term "progressive," they are simply following an age old formula for deceiving weak-minded people into thinking they are the ones with a forward-looking vision. But there is nothing "progressive" about celebrating sin and pretending there is no God or, if there is, he's somehow open to diverse opinions about right and wrong. What was true in ancient times is no less true today. The way of progress is the way of Christ and the cross, for there is no other way to the blessing of eternal life.

It is both amusing and disgusting (not to mention, downright despicable) to see and hear the predictable reaction of left-wing pundits and political hacks to the tragic events in Arizona this past weekend. It is a reminder of another sort of just how backward the so-called "progressives" are. The general template being followed is nearly a half century old. In his excellent book, Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism, James Piereson recounts the almost instantaneous effort by liberal elites to recast the slain president as a martyr for liberal causes instead of a casualty of the Cold War.

The reaction in liberal circles to Kennedy's assassination brings to mind the well-known theory of "cognitive dissonance" that was developed in the 1950s by Leon Festinger and his colleagues at Stanford University. The theory was devised to account for the ways in which people reconcile deeply held beliefs with evidence that clearly contradicts those beliefs. "Cognitive dissonance" is simply an academic way of describing an intense conflict among beliefs that generates psychological tension. In order to eliminate the tension, or the dissonance, people search for ways of making their beliefs consistent, either by denying or ignoring key facts or by reinterpreting facts in such a way as to make them consistent with deeply held convictions. Festinger cited numerous examples of such stratagems, though he found the most powerful illustrations in millenarian religious movements whose leaders have identified a particular date for the destruction of the world or the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Such prophecies, some inspired by end-of-days themes in the book of Revelation, are not all that uncommon in the history of religious movements. The intriguing question is: What is the reaction of cult followers to the inevitable failure of those prophecies in which they have placed such faith and confidence? Believers must in this circumstance find some way to reconcile their religious beliefs with the reality of a world that continues on as before. Festinger observed that they are likely to do so in various ways, some acting more or less rationally by renouncing the cults, others denying or ignoring the plain evidence before them, and still others reinterpreting the facts such that they are made compatible with the prophecies. In the latter case, followers will often recast the prophecy to some future date or suggest that God or some other force has intervened to save the world or to postpone its destruction. It seems ever to be true that people are prepared to go to great lengths to preserve deeply held convictions despite their being contradicted by the facts.

The liberal leaders cited above--Chief Justice Warren, James Reston, Senator Mansfield, Lyndon Johnson--dismissed as irrelevant the fact that President Kennedy was shot by a communist. They, like many Americans, reinterpreted the event so that it was made consistent with liberal assumptions, which held that threats to the nation were most likely to come from the irrational conduct of the radical right. Thus President Kennedy was said to be a victim of intolerance and bigotry which had infected the bloodstream of the nation (as the chief justice had put it). In many quarters, it was said that President Kennedy was a victim of the nation itself, with its violent culture where people are allowed to buy and carry firearms as if they were toys. This perverse conviction filtered into the popular culture in the 1960's, so much so that it was expressed in songs by famous rock-and-roll groups (the analog in the 1960s to Walt Whitman in Lincoln's time). "Sympathy for the Devil," a popular song written in 1968 by the Rolling Stones following the assassination of Robert Kennedy, contains the verse, "I shouted out, 'Who killed the Kennedys?' When after all, it was you and me." Another popular song from the same year, titled "Abraham, Martin, and John," was crafted to link the three men (Lincoln, King, and Kennedy) together as martyrs to the cause of civil rights.

The public did not hear in that dark time the explanation that President Kennedy had been killed for his advocacy of liberty in the face of communist tyranny in Cuba and elsewhere, or that he was a casualty of "the long twilight struggle" to defend and promote freedom in the world. Few linked his death with the bold themes articulated in his Inaugural Address that "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to assure the survival and success of liberty." No one linked the fallen president to others who had died in the battle against communist tyranny. Few suggested that there may have been a connection between the assassination and the tense confrontation the year before over nuclear missiles in Cuba. Such accounts of the assassination would have been consistent with the facts and entirely compatible with Kennedy's forceful and idealistic leadership. It was true, as will be acknowledged later, that pertinent information that would shed light on the assassination was not known either to the public or to some (not all) leaders at the time. Still, enough information was available in 1963 and 1964 to suggest that Kennedy's assassination was more a consequence of the Cold War than of the civil rights crusade. Such an account might have been advanced in a responsible way without inciting calls for war against the Soviet Union or Cuba. (pp. 103-105)

The parallels between the reaction of the liberal leadership then and their more radical successors now (Piereson's book is a chronicle of mainstream liberalism's collapse into radicalism following the Kennedy assassination) are too numerous to mention here. For those who fancy themselves "progressives," it seems, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Saturday Morning Cartoons (Election Edition): The good ol' days, when politics was just plain dirty

Clueless Joe: A lesson in selling out

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I noted with approval what was then a principled stand by Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao (R-Louisiana) in opposing the Obama healthcare takeover. However, Cao soon caved and became the only Republican to vote in favor of that monstrosity. It turned out to be only one of a myriad of sellouts to the administration which the New Orleans congressman hoped would impress Obama enough to cross party lines and endorse him in his tough re-election battle.

Yes, you read that right. Cao (R) was counting on an endorsement by Obama (D).

Well, it looks like Clueless Joe's gambit has backfired. But, loyal public servant that he is, Cao now feels honor-bound to warn the president about the man who did get his endorsement.

Republican Rep. Joseph Cao -- in an act of either selfless concern or political expediency -- says he "must" warn President Obama that the Democratic candidate he's endorsed in the race has a history of ethical problems.

The Louisiana congressman is smarting after Obama used his first general election ad to endorse Cao's opponent, Democrat Cedric Richmond. According to Cao's campaign, he had hoped Obama would endorse him considering all he did for Democrats -- like being the only Republican to cast a floor vote for the health care overhaul.

"He didn't even have the courtesy (to call us)" before running the ad, Cao spokesman Devin Johnson told FoxNews.com. "That hurt the congressman. At least, he wanted that courtesy."

But Cao says there must be an explanation -- Obama must not have known about Richmond's ethical problems.

"I believe that has happened in the congressional race for District 2 here in Louisiana," Cao said in a written statement. "No one apparently told the president that Cedric Richmond had his law license suspended for lying to the voters; that he has been the subject of two ethics violations while a legislator."

Johnson said the campaign has been trying to reach Obama for weeks, to no avail, to check his pulse on the race and discuss Richmond's history. He warned that Richmond is "radioactive" and will embarrass the state just like former Rep. William Jefferson -- the Democrat who was convicted on bribery charges and sentenced to prison after losing his seat to Cao in 2008.

Cao's campaign is drawing attention to several reports about Richmond's history, including a state Supreme Court decision suspending the state representative's law license. The Times-Picayune reported that the court suspended his license for 60 days in late 2008 for falsely claiming residence in a New Orleans district before a City Council election in 2005. The court had earlier kicked him off the ballot in that race just days before the April 2005 election.

The newspaper also reported that a state ethics board ruled in 2008 that Richmond had violated ethics rules by not properly disclosing legal work with a state agency. But Richmond reportedly was planning to appeal and has argued that he merely filled out an incorrect form.

Richmond's campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

You can't make this stuff up, folks. But let it be a lesson in selling out your principles for the political favor of people in high places. It looks like Cao won't even a get a lousy t-shirt.

The "Religion of Peace" (and "Tolerance" and "Reconciliation") strikes again, Part MCMXXLVXXI

While Barack Obama shamelessly endorses the Ground Zero mosque in the name of "religious freedom," Muslims around the world continue to impose their version of tolerance and reconciliation upon the followers of Christ.

JAKARTA, Indonesia, August 13 (CDN) — Police and local government officials joined forces with a Muslim mob to close a church in North Sumatra Province on July 30, with church leaders forced to promise never to hold services at the site.

The Rev. Leritio Panjaitan of the Binanga HKBP (Huria Kristen Batak Protestant) Church on the Gunung Tua-Sibuhan Highway in Siboris Dolok Village, Sipirok, North Sumatra Province said government officials and mobs threatened to burn the facility if worship continued there.

Pastor Panjaitan said rejection of the church was aided by the presence of a Quranic boarding school, Darul Hasnah Madrassa, which appeared in the vicinity six months ago.

“I have received information that the leader of that madrassa [Islamic school], Dr. Gong Matua Siregar, has incited citizens to reject the presence of the church,” Pastor Panjaitan said.

She said that a local government official admitted to her that the head of the madrassa had pressured him to close the church.

Pastor Panjaitan added that the church had applied for a building and worship permit long ago but that authorities had not acted on it, and that all necessary administrative requirements had been fulfilled.

The head of the Sipirok Majelis Ulama Indonesia (Assembly of Indonesian Muslim Clerics, or MUI), Haji Fahri Harahap, has said it is clear that the residents of the area, long predominantly Muslim, do not want a church there.

The closure means 80 people have lost their worship place.

“At this time, we haven’t decided if we are going to move to another place,” Pastor Panjaitan said. “But temporarily, the congregation will worship by moving from house to house.”

Threat

The congregation had first used the building in 2005. After several months, objections began from a Muslim group called the Congregation of the Binanga Sipirok Islamic Forum.

They wrote a letter to church officials requesting that the congregation no longer hold worship services in the area, as the majority in the area were Muslim and there was a fear of “Christianization.”

With no answer from the church, the Islamic group asked the local government to apply pressure, and local government officials wrote to the church requesting that all worship activities cease in order to avoid disturbances with area Muslims. The church leaders and congregation agreed and did not use the building from March 2006 through 2009.

During that time, the congregation worshipped in another building at a distant location, requiring members to incur travel expenses. As the area Christians were largely poor, they asked church leaders to consider using the building again. The elders questioned local residents about the reopening of the church building, and in February the congregation began using it again.

On July 23, however, Regent Basyrah Lubis warned the church to stop worship activities.

Up to that point there had been no problems with the local people, church leaders said, noting that the village leader had no objection to the presence of the church.

With pressure building, however, church leaders met with regional government officials and the MUI, who said many groups opposed the presence of the church and ordered that all Christian activities in the area cease.

Otherwise, the officials and Muslim clerics said, the local government would not be responsible if protestors came and burned the church.

In spite of this brazen threat, church officials decided to continue worship services. Pastor Panjaitan said worship is a human right.

“This is a matter concerning human relations with God, and government should not interfere,” she told Compass.

Noting that their threat was not heeded, government officials again called church leaders to a meeting on July 29. This meeting included the MUI, the district officer, the head of the Department of Religion, and demonstrators who objected to the presence of the church. They forced elder L. Situmorang to sign a letter pledging not to use the building and not to hold worship services on the property, church leaders said.

Initially Situmorang declined, asking for three days to consult with other church leaders, church leaders said, but the next day he was called and forced to sign the letter to stop worship.

Spare us the Sunday School lesson, Lindsey!

Quoting Scripture is a time honored tradition among politicians of all persuasions. In most instances, it is a benign exercise, peppering an otherwise innocuous rhetorical flourish with a little divine flavor. Lately, however, the "ardent, practicing Catholic" Nancy Pelosi has carried shameless political piety to a new level, claiming Jesus, "the Word made flesh" as her example of values in pursuing public policies, while supporting public policies which further the killing of unborn children. But she is no longer alone in calling upon Jesus to defend the indefensible (as opposed to the defenseless). Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina, sorry to say), in his speech supporting the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, was not content to rest his decision solely on his understanding of what "the Framers [of the Constitution] envisioned for someone to serve on the Court" (which would have been a sufficient rationale). He also found it necessary to invoke an even more ancient source.

“But at the end of the day, those of us in the Senate have to understand that every branch of government includes human beings and there is a rule that stood the test of time,” said Sen. Graham in an August 3 Senate floor speech. “I didn't make this one up. It was somebody far wiser than I am, somebody far more gifted than I ever hope to be, somebody I put a lot of trust in.

“It is called the Golden Rule,” said Graham. “‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ That is probably one of the most powerful statements ever made. It is divine in its orientation, and it is probably something that would serve us all well if we thought about it at moments such as this. "

"Human beings," Senator Graham, include countless unborn children who, because of people like Elena Kagan being placed in positions of authority, never had a chance to enjoy the blessings of life and liberty. Spare us the Sunday School lesson, Lindsey, and read the rest of Jesus' words in that particular passage of Scripture (Matthew 7.12-14). It might cause you to think again about the fateful decision you have just made.

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Praying for Pelosi

In considering what comments might be appropriate in response to Nancy Pelosi's latest exhibition of theological ignorance, I was going to point out something that should be obvious to any devout believer. However, it appears that Elizabeth Scalia, a.k.a. The Anchoress, has beaten me to the punch.

It takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to speak fervently of the Word Made Flesh, and to understand that by his Incarnation God has ennobled all mortal flesh with a sanctity and a holiness relative to his own, and yet to consistently vote–as Nancy Pelosi did in 2003–against legislation that would have banned the most savage of abortion procedures, the so-called “partial-birth abortion.”

There is simply no way to reconcile a belief in the centrality of the Incarnation--the Word made flesh--with a belief in unrestricted abortion in general and partial birth abortion in particular. For in the Incarnation, Jesus sanctified human life at every stage of its development including, and especially, life in the mother's womb. To invoke the name of Jesus while simultaneously enabling the slaughter of the most innocent and vulnerable of human beings is a particularly egregious form of blasphemy. But Ms. Scalia is, I believe, near to the mind of Christ with her intended response.

Mrs. Pelosi may seem confused to some; perhaps she is. I prefer to believe that her seeming inability to stop herself from conflating her religion and her politics is evidence that the Holy Spirit is working upon her–that perhaps her photo-op-free meeting with Pope Benedict, and with her bishop (or her public communion-taking) have flicked her conscience in such a way that we are now watching a woman try to reconcile her faith and her politics in a very public manner.

One can certainly serve the World by first being faithful to the Word; the great saints have proven this time and again. But can one serve the Word by employing the wisdom and sensibilities of the Worldly, without falling into an inconsistency (and spiritual chaos) that may cast one into mortal error?

I mean to pray for Mrs. Pelosi. I have no doubt that her identification as a Catholic is a sincere one, and I know firsthand how difficult it can be to form a conscience in the midst of sometimes pernicious influences. If she is being schooled and ravished by the Holy Spirit while also being pulled by all of her worldly attachments, then something will have to give, in God’s own time.

There is, Jesus said, "more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (Luke 15.7). In a day and age when so many "family values" politicians are woefully failing to walk the walk, what a marvelous testimony it would be to the transforming power of God's grace and Holy Spirit for this most wayward of wanderers to find her way home.

Let it be, Lord, according to your will.

WWJA (Who would Jesus abort?)

The following two sentences come at the beginning of this article from CNSNews.com. They are reprinted here, verbatim, with no editing whatsoever.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she believes she must pursue public policies "in keeping with the values" of Jesus Christ, "The Word made Flesh."

Pelosi, who is a Catholic and who favors legalized abortion, voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion that was enacted into law in 2003.

No comment, for now.