There has been a lot of talk in the press lately, actually for over a year now, regarding something that they like to call "Universal Health care." This is to make it sound good, making people think that it is about making sure that everyone has access to quality health care. Of course, this is not actually the truth.
What is being discussed would be much more accurately referred to as either Socialized Medicine, or Nationalized Health care, to indicate that it is Government run medical services, not simply health care for everyone.
This has been implemented in many countries around the world, and has been absolutely disastrous in each and every case. Oh, sure, in relatively free counties it works ok for people with the sniffles who need a simple prescriptions now and then, and even sometimes for broken bones and things like that. However, for people with major problems, they end up waiting months for things that would be dealt with in just days, or even hours, here in the US. In Canada, an entire industry has grown up around the need that people have to get these emergency medical conditions treated in the US, so that they might have a chance at survival. In these systems, people die for the simple reason that they cannot get treated at all. That is to say, they get scheduled for whatever tests they need and such, but, but the tests are scheduled so far out that they end up dying before that date arrives, and quite often it's something that could have been effectively treated, if it had been done in a timely manner. Of course, no Government does anything in a timely manner, except for tax it's people.
So, if it has been proven to be such a failure everywhere, why are people so intent on pushing for it. Well, first of all, there are a lot of people who just really don't understand the truth of the matter and don't take the time to learn the facts. But what about those who do know the truth, why would they be pushing so hard for this insane plan? It's simple, population control. These are the people who believe that the Earth is overpopulated and that some of the people need to be killed off. I guess they see controlling the medical industry as a good way to accomplish this mission. Most people won't even say something like this, but it's grossly obvious, there is simply no other reason why someone who understands the truth would want to go through with it, they just want people to die. It's not the same as the people who just believe the lies that the media tells them, and in fact, most in the media don't care to get to the truth either, because it just sounds so good when you don't tell the whole truth of the matter.
This is indeed a very sad situation, but, sadder still is the fact that so many people are so willing to let such a system be put in place here, either because they don't understand what is going on, or because they believe in the population control policy.
And, don't be fooled by Micheal Moore and his propaganda, where he went down to Cuba and made it look like the Medical Care that is enjoyed by Castro and his Elitist friends is the same as what is available to the rest of the Cuban people. Of course, this is nonsense, most Cubans don't get any care at all of any kind for anything. This is why earlier I said that it can work ok for certain things in relatively free countries, because I wanted to clarify that in places like Cuba, it doesn't work for the common people at all, ever. Is that really what we want to put in place here? I don't really think so.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Supreme Ideology
There have been three major decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the past few weeks, and I wanted to devote a little bit of time to them today. The point of this is about how the Supreme Court, whose job it is to interpret the Constitution and make sure that the laws of the land, and the actions of the Federal Government do not violate the Constitution, not to make rules and decide how things should be. This is the one position where it should not matter what a persons political views happen to be, because they are upholding the intent of the authors of the Constitution, or the amendments to it, not to make their own rules.
The first decision, which was terrible, was to extend certain Constitutional rights to Terrorists held at Gitmo. There was no basis for this decision whatsoever. At no point in our history have we taken people who were captured on the field of battle, who are enemies of our nation, and were engaged in acts against us, and charged them in a civilian court, and bestowed the protections of our Constitution upon them. They do not stand accused of crimes, nor were the arrested by police officers. They are, for all intents and purposes, Prisoners of War, or a sort, being that, as terrorists, they are not wearing the uniform of any nation, but that is the closest parallel that we have for how these people should be treated. There are many arguments for and against detaining people like this over a long period of time, and I understand that, but the Court's role in this case was to determine what the Constitution intends in such a case, and clearly, the Constitution does not allow for enemy's who are captured on the battle field to be granted rights of protection, which are supposed to be reserved for Citizens of the USA.
The second decision, which is different, but in it's way even more reprehensible than the first, was to say that the death penalty cannot be used in cases of Child Rape. The argument that the majority used in the outrageous ruling was that the death penalty in these cases would violate the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments that they could have used. This protection was not meant to strike down the death penalty for heinous crimes, it was to prevent the torture of citizens by the Government or ruling body. So that things like the rack, or thumb screws, or whipping and things like that could not be used as penalties in the USA. Nor does it reserve Capital Punishment for murderers. You could argue against it for shoplifting, or something like that, but, nobody is suggesting that in any case. The fact is that the rape, and/or sexual assault of a child is sufficiently heinous to warrant the death penalty. Certainly it does not stand to reason that putting someone to death for this crime would be cruel or unusual punishment. It's just nuts. There are many reasons why child rapists should be put to death, but again, that is not up to the court, what they should have been concerned with is the intention of that clause in the Constitution (Bill of Rights actually, but that's still part of the Constitution) which clearly did not apply to this case. This is crazy.
The third one, which was a good decision, was to strike down as Unconstitutional the Washington DC gun ban. This was true. For far too long we have been dealing with horribly unreasonable gun laws, which serve to do nothing more than keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens who would only use them for self defence in any case, but did nothing to keep them away from criminals, making the world a much more dangerous place. Clearly the Constitution intended for the right to keep and bear arms to be a right for individual persons, not for just the military. I think the wording of the amendment, while perfectly clear to those who wrote it, has become unfortunate for today, since, being that the culture is different today, the intent is not nearly so clear to people today. Thankfully this time they sided with USA, and not with the liberal ideology that drives so much of what happens in this country.
The main point that I want to make is this, when the Supreme Court runs away, unchecked and makes any ruling that it wants, we loose our liberty, and our freedoms, and move from the Constitutional Republic that we were formed to be, and become and Judicial Oligarchy (that is, rule by an elite few), and no good can possibly come from that.
The first decision, which was terrible, was to extend certain Constitutional rights to Terrorists held at Gitmo. There was no basis for this decision whatsoever. At no point in our history have we taken people who were captured on the field of battle, who are enemies of our nation, and were engaged in acts against us, and charged them in a civilian court, and bestowed the protections of our Constitution upon them. They do not stand accused of crimes, nor were the arrested by police officers. They are, for all intents and purposes, Prisoners of War, or a sort, being that, as terrorists, they are not wearing the uniform of any nation, but that is the closest parallel that we have for how these people should be treated. There are many arguments for and against detaining people like this over a long period of time, and I understand that, but the Court's role in this case was to determine what the Constitution intends in such a case, and clearly, the Constitution does not allow for enemy's who are captured on the battle field to be granted rights of protection, which are supposed to be reserved for Citizens of the USA.
The second decision, which is different, but in it's way even more reprehensible than the first, was to say that the death penalty cannot be used in cases of Child Rape. The argument that the majority used in the outrageous ruling was that the death penalty in these cases would violate the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments that they could have used. This protection was not meant to strike down the death penalty for heinous crimes, it was to prevent the torture of citizens by the Government or ruling body. So that things like the rack, or thumb screws, or whipping and things like that could not be used as penalties in the USA. Nor does it reserve Capital Punishment for murderers. You could argue against it for shoplifting, or something like that, but, nobody is suggesting that in any case. The fact is that the rape, and/or sexual assault of a child is sufficiently heinous to warrant the death penalty. Certainly it does not stand to reason that putting someone to death for this crime would be cruel or unusual punishment. It's just nuts. There are many reasons why child rapists should be put to death, but again, that is not up to the court, what they should have been concerned with is the intention of that clause in the Constitution (Bill of Rights actually, but that's still part of the Constitution) which clearly did not apply to this case. This is crazy.
The third one, which was a good decision, was to strike down as Unconstitutional the Washington DC gun ban. This was true. For far too long we have been dealing with horribly unreasonable gun laws, which serve to do nothing more than keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens who would only use them for self defence in any case, but did nothing to keep them away from criminals, making the world a much more dangerous place. Clearly the Constitution intended for the right to keep and bear arms to be a right for individual persons, not for just the military. I think the wording of the amendment, while perfectly clear to those who wrote it, has become unfortunate for today, since, being that the culture is different today, the intent is not nearly so clear to people today. Thankfully this time they sided with USA, and not with the liberal ideology that drives so much of what happens in this country.
The main point that I want to make is this, when the Supreme Court runs away, unchecked and makes any ruling that it wants, we loose our liberty, and our freedoms, and move from the Constitutional Republic that we were formed to be, and become and Judicial Oligarchy (that is, rule by an elite few), and no good can possibly come from that.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
God's Provision
Tuesday, I was working an overtime shift, so I finished up at work and headed for home around 5PM. On my way home I noticed that the "Check Oil" light had come on. This took me back a little bit because I just had the oil changed about two weeks ago, and had only driven around 120 miles since then, and, despite being 13 years old, and having 120,000 miles on it, this car has never used any oil.
When I got home I parked in the driveway (usually I park in the front yard, so as not to block the carport) and let it cool, then checked the oil. I found just the tip of the dipstick to be wet. So I moved the car back into the yard, and then went down to Wal-Mart in the van to get some oil. Then, yesterday morning I put two quarts of oil in it and went down to Wal-Mart to see if it was something they had done at the oil change that caused this. Actually, I had hoped that that was all it was so that it would be a really easy quick fix that they could take care of right there and everything would be done.
When I got to Wal-Mart the shop manager happened to be coming outside, and he knows me because this is the store that my wife and I both used to work at, and my Father-in-law worked with these guys out in the shop for awhile, so I told him what had happened, and he took it right in and looked at it. It wasn't anything that they had done, but he showed me where the oil was coming from, and topped it off for me, and told me what he thought the problem was. So I called my wife at work to tell her what we had found. So she called her dad, and he in turn called his former boss at Wal-Mart to figure out just exactly what we had seen. So, when he got out of work, he stopped at the auto parts store and got the part they thought it was (Thank God it was a $7 part) and came over to take a look.
It did appear to be the part that he had picked up, and only took him a minute to change it out, and we topped off the oil again, so I was able to take the car to work, which was good, since my wife needs to leave for work before I get home in the morning, so, me taking the van to work would be problematic at best.
When we saw the oil coming out at the shop yesterday morning, I was thinking, great, this is going to be a huge job and a huge expense, but God sure knew better than I did.
I just wanted to take a moment and share this with you all, and say, thank God. And yes, I did thank my father-in-law also.
Praise the Lord!
When I got home I parked in the driveway (usually I park in the front yard, so as not to block the carport) and let it cool, then checked the oil. I found just the tip of the dipstick to be wet. So I moved the car back into the yard, and then went down to Wal-Mart in the van to get some oil. Then, yesterday morning I put two quarts of oil in it and went down to Wal-Mart to see if it was something they had done at the oil change that caused this. Actually, I had hoped that that was all it was so that it would be a really easy quick fix that they could take care of right there and everything would be done.
When I got to Wal-Mart the shop manager happened to be coming outside, and he knows me because this is the store that my wife and I both used to work at, and my Father-in-law worked with these guys out in the shop for awhile, so I told him what had happened, and he took it right in and looked at it. It wasn't anything that they had done, but he showed me where the oil was coming from, and topped it off for me, and told me what he thought the problem was. So I called my wife at work to tell her what we had found. So she called her dad, and he in turn called his former boss at Wal-Mart to figure out just exactly what we had seen. So, when he got out of work, he stopped at the auto parts store and got the part they thought it was (Thank God it was a $7 part) and came over to take a look.
It did appear to be the part that he had picked up, and only took him a minute to change it out, and we topped off the oil again, so I was able to take the car to work, which was good, since my wife needs to leave for work before I get home in the morning, so, me taking the van to work would be problematic at best.
When we saw the oil coming out at the shop yesterday morning, I was thinking, great, this is going to be a huge job and a huge expense, but God sure knew better than I did.
I just wanted to take a moment and share this with you all, and say, thank God. And yes, I did thank my father-in-law also.
Praise the Lord!
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Who To Believe?
There seems to be some trouble between Barack Obama and Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family fame.
I've never personally been a Dobson groupie, but I've always respected the man. I don't think that you can question all the good work that he has done over many years trying to support and strengthen the American Family. Also, being a longtime Christian, giving thought and consideration to the Word of God, and associating with good Bible teachers has given him some room to talk about Biblical matters. To be clear, his earned degree is in Child Development, and he does not hold earned degree's in any Biblical field. I don't say that to denigrate him, I don't think it takes anything away from him when it comes to talking about Scripture, I just think we need to be clear.
On to the main point though, Obama has made some statements about what the Bible says, and what religion should be and what it's role in the world should be. Dobson responded that these statements by Obama shows that he distorting the Bible.
If you've noticed that this post has been pretty ambiguous as to what was actually said, there is a good reason for that. If you didn't listen to the "Focus On The Family" show where this was aired, which I haven't had a chance to do yet, it's nearly impossible to find a breakdown of what these statements were.
This leaves us with pretty much no choice but to base a conclusion on the people in the dispute. As I already stated, Dobson has a long history of work with and exposure to the Scriptures and good Biblical teachers. Meanwhile, Obama has shown no credentials in evaluating Scripture whatsoever, and look at the preacher that he sat under for so many years, who has himself shown that he doesn't have any standing to evaluate Scripture.
I don't think that there's any choice but to say that Dobson was right, and Obama tried to distort the Bible for his own Political ends. Can we really be surprised?
I've never personally been a Dobson groupie, but I've always respected the man. I don't think that you can question all the good work that he has done over many years trying to support and strengthen the American Family. Also, being a longtime Christian, giving thought and consideration to the Word of God, and associating with good Bible teachers has given him some room to talk about Biblical matters. To be clear, his earned degree is in Child Development, and he does not hold earned degree's in any Biblical field. I don't say that to denigrate him, I don't think it takes anything away from him when it comes to talking about Scripture, I just think we need to be clear.
On to the main point though, Obama has made some statements about what the Bible says, and what religion should be and what it's role in the world should be. Dobson responded that these statements by Obama shows that he distorting the Bible.
If you've noticed that this post has been pretty ambiguous as to what was actually said, there is a good reason for that. If you didn't listen to the "Focus On The Family" show where this was aired, which I haven't had a chance to do yet, it's nearly impossible to find a breakdown of what these statements were.
This leaves us with pretty much no choice but to base a conclusion on the people in the dispute. As I already stated, Dobson has a long history of work with and exposure to the Scriptures and good Biblical teachers. Meanwhile, Obama has shown no credentials in evaluating Scripture whatsoever, and look at the preacher that he sat under for so many years, who has himself shown that he doesn't have any standing to evaluate Scripture.
I don't think that there's any choice but to say that Dobson was right, and Obama tried to distort the Bible for his own Political ends. Can we really be surprised?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Standing With Isreal
Genesis 12
1Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." [ESV]
It seems to be getting to the point where it's the in thing to come out and say bad things about Israel. Even to the point where people who supposedly support Israel are finding it to be ok to come out and say that the things that Israel is doing are wrong.
For example, when Israel's neighbors fire rockets into Israel's cities, and kill their children, and when Israel responds to the attacks, even when they are restrained, and very careful to keep from killing too many people, and try hard to not kill women and children, at times even at the cost of more Israelis, they are terribly vilified in the press, both here and abroad.
To my mind, if you look at Israel, and, even putting aside the fact that the Jews are God's chosen people, see that they are a small nation that has been attacked from all sides for all the years since that tiny nation's creation in the 1940's. They are surrounded by nations and cultures that are openly committed to their destruction. After all the attacks that they have suffered, and all the people that they have lost in the course of events, there is nothing that they could do that would be an over-reaction. I know that there are some people who would read that and think that I meant that there are reasonable limits to that, but no, I mean it, there is literally nothing that could be done, by Israel, that would be going too far, up to, and including, the use of Nuclear weapons, which, I don't believe for a second that they will do, but, if they did, it wouldn't be out of line, all things considered. If there were any doubts about how much I stand in Israel's corner, I hope that this cleared things up.
Enough of my rant though. The actual point I want to make is what our nation will open itself up to if we stop standing with Israel as we have for decades now. God, in His Word, makes no equivocations on this topic, " I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse..." There is no question that the USA has been richly blessed by God, and I think that there are two reasons for that, the first being that throughout our nations history, a majority of Americans have at least tried to honor God, and our nation has had, as an official policy, standing with the Nation of Israel. Both of these positions are in serious jeopardy today. In fact, honoring God is not only something that people care little for today, it has actually become fashionable to dishonor God. There are also many signs our nation no longer takes it as a given that we will stand by Israel, regardless of the fact that, all other things aside, they have been one of our best allies in the world for decades.
At play here, of course, are a few things. By failing to honor God, we pretty much guarantee that we will lose those blessings that we have become accustomed to, but, much more seriously than that, if we turn our backs on Israel, and begin to stand with their enemies, we will be cursed by God. As bad as losing blessing would be, I think we can all agree that being cursed is much worse. I was going to say that we run a big risk by doing this, but that doesn't cover it, God didn't say, "I may Curse them that curse you," He said, "I WILL curse." So, it's not a risk, it's a certainty.
God has blessed Israel, and if we bless them, we will receive blessing also, but if we curse them (ie turn against them to be their enemy) He will still bless them, and curse us. That's the bottom line, and one we cannot afford to ignore.
1Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." [ESV]
It seems to be getting to the point where it's the in thing to come out and say bad things about Israel. Even to the point where people who supposedly support Israel are finding it to be ok to come out and say that the things that Israel is doing are wrong.
For example, when Israel's neighbors fire rockets into Israel's cities, and kill their children, and when Israel responds to the attacks, even when they are restrained, and very careful to keep from killing too many people, and try hard to not kill women and children, at times even at the cost of more Israelis, they are terribly vilified in the press, both here and abroad.
To my mind, if you look at Israel, and, even putting aside the fact that the Jews are God's chosen people, see that they are a small nation that has been attacked from all sides for all the years since that tiny nation's creation in the 1940's. They are surrounded by nations and cultures that are openly committed to their destruction. After all the attacks that they have suffered, and all the people that they have lost in the course of events, there is nothing that they could do that would be an over-reaction. I know that there are some people who would read that and think that I meant that there are reasonable limits to that, but no, I mean it, there is literally nothing that could be done, by Israel, that would be going too far, up to, and including, the use of Nuclear weapons, which, I don't believe for a second that they will do, but, if they did, it wouldn't be out of line, all things considered. If there were any doubts about how much I stand in Israel's corner, I hope that this cleared things up.
Enough of my rant though. The actual point I want to make is what our nation will open itself up to if we stop standing with Israel as we have for decades now. God, in His Word, makes no equivocations on this topic, " I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse..." There is no question that the USA has been richly blessed by God, and I think that there are two reasons for that, the first being that throughout our nations history, a majority of Americans have at least tried to honor God, and our nation has had, as an official policy, standing with the Nation of Israel. Both of these positions are in serious jeopardy today. In fact, honoring God is not only something that people care little for today, it has actually become fashionable to dishonor God. There are also many signs our nation no longer takes it as a given that we will stand by Israel, regardless of the fact that, all other things aside, they have been one of our best allies in the world for decades.
At play here, of course, are a few things. By failing to honor God, we pretty much guarantee that we will lose those blessings that we have become accustomed to, but, much more seriously than that, if we turn our backs on Israel, and begin to stand with their enemies, we will be cursed by God. As bad as losing blessing would be, I think we can all agree that being cursed is much worse. I was going to say that we run a big risk by doing this, but that doesn't cover it, God didn't say, "I may Curse them that curse you," He said, "I WILL curse." So, it's not a risk, it's a certainty.
God has blessed Israel, and if we bless them, we will receive blessing also, but if we curse them (ie turn against them to be their enemy) He will still bless them, and curse us. That's the bottom line, and one we cannot afford to ignore.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Still In Denial
A little while ago I did a post regarding the Global Warming alarmist crowd (flat earthers as Mark Levin calls them) and how they are denying the science that now shows that the Earth is now cooling once again, instead of warming up, as they keep telling us. That is to say that if you actually look at the data it's impossible to deny, but they deny that it really means that Global Warming is a farce, they say that it means that Global Warming is on hold, or some other such non-sense.
Anyway, at least the (flat Earth) scientists who refuse to admit that the cooling proves that our temperature is in a natural cycle, do, at least admit that the data shows a cooling trend. The mainstream media and politicians on the other hand, refuse to even do that much. They keep talking about Global Warming and how much warmer the Earth is, and how ongoing Global Warming is still such a huge problem. It might be funny if it weren't so stupid and outrageous.
It's really not unexpected that Democrats and other liberals would refuse to see the truth for what it is, after all, liberalism, as I've explained before, has nothing to do with reality at all, it's all about the ideology, not the facts. What is disgusting is the number of Republicans that have bought into all this non-sense. And, of course, John McCain is one of the ones who has fallen the hardest for the whole deal.
It is nice to see, though, that McCain has now come out and agreed that we need to start drilling for Oil here in the US, since people just can't afford for the gas prices to keep going up, and the only thing that will put a stop to this outrageous skyrocketing of prices is increased supply. I find it funny the number of people who say that drilling for oil and building new refineries won't be a quick fix, since drilling where we know there is oil could take between 5 and 10 years to get the "new" oil to market, then you ask what they want to do, and of course, they want to explore alternative energy options. Of course, it will take, very likely 25 years or more to bring a new source of energy online, even if it were proven and ready to get started today... so maybe we need to work on getting some more oil in the mean time.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against coming up with new sources of energy, in fact, I think it's a great idea, but we are not to the point where we can stop using oil on a very large scale. I do believe that if the Government will get out of the way of private industry, and give them a little freedom, we could end up with something that will allow us to reduce our oil usage to minimal levels. We'll never be off of oil entirely, it's in too many products, but as long as we get to the point where we aren't burning it in our cars and power plants, it would go a long way.
I need people to get off of their ideological bandwagons and start dealing with reality as it presents itself.
Anyway, at least the (flat Earth) scientists who refuse to admit that the cooling proves that our temperature is in a natural cycle, do, at least admit that the data shows a cooling trend. The mainstream media and politicians on the other hand, refuse to even do that much. They keep talking about Global Warming and how much warmer the Earth is, and how ongoing Global Warming is still such a huge problem. It might be funny if it weren't so stupid and outrageous.
It's really not unexpected that Democrats and other liberals would refuse to see the truth for what it is, after all, liberalism, as I've explained before, has nothing to do with reality at all, it's all about the ideology, not the facts. What is disgusting is the number of Republicans that have bought into all this non-sense. And, of course, John McCain is one of the ones who has fallen the hardest for the whole deal.
It is nice to see, though, that McCain has now come out and agreed that we need to start drilling for Oil here in the US, since people just can't afford for the gas prices to keep going up, and the only thing that will put a stop to this outrageous skyrocketing of prices is increased supply. I find it funny the number of people who say that drilling for oil and building new refineries won't be a quick fix, since drilling where we know there is oil could take between 5 and 10 years to get the "new" oil to market, then you ask what they want to do, and of course, they want to explore alternative energy options. Of course, it will take, very likely 25 years or more to bring a new source of energy online, even if it were proven and ready to get started today... so maybe we need to work on getting some more oil in the mean time.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against coming up with new sources of energy, in fact, I think it's a great idea, but we are not to the point where we can stop using oil on a very large scale. I do believe that if the Government will get out of the way of private industry, and give them a little freedom, we could end up with something that will allow us to reduce our oil usage to minimal levels. We'll never be off of oil entirely, it's in too many products, but as long as we get to the point where we aren't burning it in our cars and power plants, it would go a long way.
I need people to get off of their ideological bandwagons and start dealing with reality as it presents itself.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Ice Road Truckers Is Back
About a year ago I posted a blog about a show on the History Channel called, "Ice Road Truckers." I enjoyed watching this show all the way through the first season, and ended up wishing that it was longer. Ever since it ended I have been waiting for it to come back for the second season.The wait is, at long last, over. Some of the same truckers are back for this season, but it's going to be very different this year. So, if you were worried about this being a re-hash of last season, you need not worry. In fact, they are not even driving on the same ice road this year.
Last season they were delivering equipment to Diamond Mines in Northern Canada. In that case the ice road that they were driving on was composed of frozen lakes, with small land bridges in between. This time they are driving over a frozen river and then out onto the Arctic Ocean. So, there are no land bridges this time.
In the last season we learned that stopping on the frozen lakes was a bad idea, because then the truck becomes dead weight on the ice, and the idling of the truck weakens the ice further, and runs the risk of falling through the ice.
This time there are no land bridges, they will be out on the open ocean, with no place to stop when there is a problem. After all the dangers of last year, you wouldn't have thought that they could have stepped things up, and yet, they did.
Now, as I said, last time they were going to they were delivering equipment to the diamond mines, this time they are delivering equipment to the oil companies as they work to gain access to natural gas and do research on new and, hopefully, viable forms of alternative energy.
Two episodes have been on so far this season, but so far I have only been able to watch the first one, as there was a mistake made with the settings on the DVR, but fortunately, unlike broadcast networks, the History Channel is really good about reshowing episodes to give you a chance to catch up if you miss some.
To me, this show, and others like it , are way better than most of what is being offered by broadcast networks. I don't tend to think of this as a reality show since they usually bear no resemblance to reality, and this is actually real. I highly recommend this show, but, watch it or not, I enjoy it.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Good For Obama
I don't think I have made a secret of how I feel about Barack Obama, and what his becoming President would mean for our country. I also have discussed how I felt about his race speech, which was hailed as so great by so many. I think it's safe to say that I really don't hold him in very high regard, and am not very impressed by most of what I have seen of him. Also, contrary to what most people have said, I don't think he's all that great a speaker. Oh, I admit, when he gives a speech, he does ok, but he's certainly not the greatest speaker I've ever heard.
All that being said however, I have to give him credit for some of the things he said in his Father's Day speech. After a little bit of normal liberal rhetoric, he said this, "But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child - it's the courage to raise one." This was an outstanding statement that most of us have thought for a long time, but it was nice to hear it from an ultra liberal politician like Obama. I have to say at this point that, while he did say that this was something that is a big problem for the African American community, I feel the need to point out that it is most certainly not limited to that community, and I hope that others don't ignore the truth of it just because they don't happen to be black.
He went on to say, "You know, sometimes I'll go to an eighth-grade graduation and there's all that pomp and circumstance and gowns and flowers. And I think to myself, it's just eighth grade. To really compete, they need to graduate high school, and then they need to graduate college, and they probably need a graduate degree too. An eighth-grade education doesn't cut it today. Let's give them a handshake and tell them to get their butts back in the library!" Which I really enjoyed because this is one of my own personal pet peeves. I said the same thing when my daughter had her Kindergarten "Graduation" ceremony, with full cap and gown and everything. Then I started hearing people talking about doing these things for sixth grade, and for eighth grade, and I said to myself, and probably a few other people, "Doesn't this take away from the real Graduation?" I still think that it's crazy to do full cap and gown and all that stuff for anything before high school graduation, that is when you have made an important accomplishment, not when you've made it all the way through kindergarten, or even eighth grade.
If you look at the speech as a whole, there is still a lot of liberal rhetoric throughout it, but I still like that he's calling on fathers to step up and be fathers, and not to just enjoy the passion of the moment and then take off and leave it to the mother to do the child rearing, even if they do send the money, that's not enough, and it doesn't absolve them of responsibility in the lives of their children. I know that there are many fathers out there who really want to do the right thing, but for some reason or anther, that option really isn't open to them. But there are a lot of others who are content to not be a major player in the life if their child, if they are present at all.
I don't want to put this all on the father though. How many cases are there where parents get divorced? How often does this need to happen? How often is it just one parent or the other deciding that they just don't want to be married anymore, or that they just can't work out the issues that they have with their spouse? It is my opinion that most often these issue both can and should be worked out, but in our current culture, that's just not what is done. The prevailing "wisdom" today is, if you don't have a fairy-tale marriage, just end it, no harm, no foul. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. Very rare (admittedly not rare enough) is the case where a divorce is actually something that should, and needs to be, done, and yet divorce is rampant in our culture, and this saddens me. I guess that as much as I appreciated Obama's points in his speech, this is one that he missed out on, that the breakdown of the family is driven in large part by unrestricted, no-fault divorce. Mark 10:2-9 says, 2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away." 5 And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."(ESV)
I have gotten a little off topic here, but I feel that this subject is very important, and there is every possibility that I will revisit this in some future post. I still say though, good job Obama. I still think he would be a terrible President, but it is nice to at least have heard him make these statements, even if you do have to fish them out liberal speak.
All that being said however, I have to give him credit for some of the things he said in his Father's Day speech. After a little bit of normal liberal rhetoric, he said this, "But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child - it's the courage to raise one." This was an outstanding statement that most of us have thought for a long time, but it was nice to hear it from an ultra liberal politician like Obama. I have to say at this point that, while he did say that this was something that is a big problem for the African American community, I feel the need to point out that it is most certainly not limited to that community, and I hope that others don't ignore the truth of it just because they don't happen to be black.
He went on to say, "You know, sometimes I'll go to an eighth-grade graduation and there's all that pomp and circumstance and gowns and flowers. And I think to myself, it's just eighth grade. To really compete, they need to graduate high school, and then they need to graduate college, and they probably need a graduate degree too. An eighth-grade education doesn't cut it today. Let's give them a handshake and tell them to get their butts back in the library!" Which I really enjoyed because this is one of my own personal pet peeves. I said the same thing when my daughter had her Kindergarten "Graduation" ceremony, with full cap and gown and everything. Then I started hearing people talking about doing these things for sixth grade, and for eighth grade, and I said to myself, and probably a few other people, "Doesn't this take away from the real Graduation?" I still think that it's crazy to do full cap and gown and all that stuff for anything before high school graduation, that is when you have made an important accomplishment, not when you've made it all the way through kindergarten, or even eighth grade.
If you look at the speech as a whole, there is still a lot of liberal rhetoric throughout it, but I still like that he's calling on fathers to step up and be fathers, and not to just enjoy the passion of the moment and then take off and leave it to the mother to do the child rearing, even if they do send the money, that's not enough, and it doesn't absolve them of responsibility in the lives of their children. I know that there are many fathers out there who really want to do the right thing, but for some reason or anther, that option really isn't open to them. But there are a lot of others who are content to not be a major player in the life if their child, if they are present at all.
I don't want to put this all on the father though. How many cases are there where parents get divorced? How often does this need to happen? How often is it just one parent or the other deciding that they just don't want to be married anymore, or that they just can't work out the issues that they have with their spouse? It is my opinion that most often these issue both can and should be worked out, but in our current culture, that's just not what is done. The prevailing "wisdom" today is, if you don't have a fairy-tale marriage, just end it, no harm, no foul. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. Very rare (admittedly not rare enough) is the case where a divorce is actually something that should, and needs to be, done, and yet divorce is rampant in our culture, and this saddens me. I guess that as much as I appreciated Obama's points in his speech, this is one that he missed out on, that the breakdown of the family is driven in large part by unrestricted, no-fault divorce. Mark 10:2-9 says, 2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away." 5 And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."(ESV)
I have gotten a little off topic here, but I feel that this subject is very important, and there is every possibility that I will revisit this in some future post. I still say though, good job Obama. I still think he would be a terrible President, but it is nice to at least have heard him make these statements, even if you do have to fish them out liberal speak.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Reading
I am someone who loves to read. This, however, is not one of my book reviews. Instead, at the moment, I am between books, with the last book I read being "Rescuing Sprite."
There was a time when I read fiction, pretty much exclusively, but, starting a couple of years ago with Bernie Goldberg's book, "Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost It's Mind, and the Other Lost It's Nerve," I discovered that non-fiction books can be really fun to read. Since that time I have read quite a few non-fiction books, both in the field of Politics, and Christianity. For the most part they have been excellent books, and well worth reading.
That's not to say that there is anything wrong with sitting down to a good novel, although it's something that I haven't had much luck trying to do lately, because I've been enjoying non-fiction so much.
When I was in 5th or 6th grade my dad was actually worried because I didn't like to read at all, and he was afraid that maybe I couldn't read very well, and that was the reason. In fact, he worried about it so much that he asked my teacher if she thought that I had a problem. She told him that reading ability was certainly not my problem, because, when I had to read in class, I did just fine, she figured that I just hadn't found anything that I had any interest in reading yet, and she was right. Dad asked her if she thought that it would be ok if he let me read some books by Louis L'Amour, being that I loved Western movies so much (mostly John Wayne by the way) or if it would be bad because they are adult books. She told him that if I wanted to read them, and it would get me reading something, she didn't see a problem with it. So he did.
And that is the story of the beginning of my love affair with reading. I'm not sure how many Louis L'Amour books I have read, but it was quite a few. In fact, I think there's only a fairly small number of his books that I haven't read.
From L'Amour I moved on to John Grisham about the time that he came out with "The Firm" being that "A Time To Kill" was not that popular of a book until after the release of "The Firm" at which time, people became interested in the author's previous book, and it's a good thing, because it's an outstanding book. I still enjoy Grisham as reading one of his books is usually pretty easy, and a nice break from the heavier stuff that I normally prefer.
Speaking of heavier reading, I've also really enjoyed reading novels by Tom Clancy, though I don't usually recommend them to people due to the amount of foul language that litter the pages of his books. But the stories! Oh, the stories that man can tell. Absolutely riveting. In my opinion he is probably one of the best story tellers in the history of American Literature. I'm sure many will disagree, and I admit, there's a lot of authors I haven't read, but I can't imagine that there are too many in Clancy's league.
I've also enjoyed Star Trek novels, and a variety of other sci fi books, and again, they do make for enjoyable reading.
I highly recommend the world of books to people, regardless if you are reading deep and thoughtful non-fiction, or light and easy novels, books open up such a great world to us that wouldn't be available otherwise. From the Bible, all the way down to fun and easy novels, I love books, and I hope you do too.
There was a time when I read fiction, pretty much exclusively, but, starting a couple of years ago with Bernie Goldberg's book, "Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost It's Mind, and the Other Lost It's Nerve," I discovered that non-fiction books can be really fun to read. Since that time I have read quite a few non-fiction books, both in the field of Politics, and Christianity. For the most part they have been excellent books, and well worth reading.
That's not to say that there is anything wrong with sitting down to a good novel, although it's something that I haven't had much luck trying to do lately, because I've been enjoying non-fiction so much.
When I was in 5th or 6th grade my dad was actually worried because I didn't like to read at all, and he was afraid that maybe I couldn't read very well, and that was the reason. In fact, he worried about it so much that he asked my teacher if she thought that I had a problem. She told him that reading ability was certainly not my problem, because, when I had to read in class, I did just fine, she figured that I just hadn't found anything that I had any interest in reading yet, and she was right. Dad asked her if she thought that it would be ok if he let me read some books by Louis L'Amour, being that I loved Western movies so much (mostly John Wayne by the way) or if it would be bad because they are adult books. She told him that if I wanted to read them, and it would get me reading something, she didn't see a problem with it. So he did.
And that is the story of the beginning of my love affair with reading. I'm not sure how many Louis L'Amour books I have read, but it was quite a few. In fact, I think there's only a fairly small number of his books that I haven't read.
From L'Amour I moved on to John Grisham about the time that he came out with "The Firm" being that "A Time To Kill" was not that popular of a book until after the release of "The Firm" at which time, people became interested in the author's previous book, and it's a good thing, because it's an outstanding book. I still enjoy Grisham as reading one of his books is usually pretty easy, and a nice break from the heavier stuff that I normally prefer.
Speaking of heavier reading, I've also really enjoyed reading novels by Tom Clancy, though I don't usually recommend them to people due to the amount of foul language that litter the pages of his books. But the stories! Oh, the stories that man can tell. Absolutely riveting. In my opinion he is probably one of the best story tellers in the history of American Literature. I'm sure many will disagree, and I admit, there's a lot of authors I haven't read, but I can't imagine that there are too many in Clancy's league.
I've also enjoyed Star Trek novels, and a variety of other sci fi books, and again, they do make for enjoyable reading.
I highly recommend the world of books to people, regardless if you are reading deep and thoughtful non-fiction, or light and easy novels, books open up such a great world to us that wouldn't be available otherwise. From the Bible, all the way down to fun and easy novels, I love books, and I hope you do too.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
He Was Only 58
I just wanted to take a moment today to remember Tim Russert of NBC who died suddenly, apparently of a heart attack while at work yesterday.
Russert was best known for being the host of "Meet the Press" on NBC as well as a senior political analyst on NBC and MSNBC.
No question about it that he was a liberal guy, but he made an obvious effort to be fair. Just as obvious is the fact that he took his Journalism very seriously. Personally, I liked the guy, and was saddened to hear the news. My heart and prayers go out to his family as they deal with his unexpected death.
Sadder still should be NBC news. In Tim Russert, they have lost the last best hope they had for being a serious news organization, ever again.
Russert was best known for being the host of "Meet the Press" on NBC as well as a senior political analyst on NBC and MSNBC.
No question about it that he was a liberal guy, but he made an obvious effort to be fair. Just as obvious is the fact that he took his Journalism very seriously. Personally, I liked the guy, and was saddened to hear the news. My heart and prayers go out to his family as they deal with his unexpected death.
Sadder still should be NBC news. In Tim Russert, they have lost the last best hope they had for being a serious news organization, ever again.
Friday, June 13, 2008
The American Dream
I'm pretty sick and tired of constantly hearing people distort what the American Dream is really all about.
Invariably when you hear it mentioned on the news, or on some talk show or something, you will hear people talking about some celebrity or sports star, who is making millions of dollars a year, or some other similarly rich person. This gross distortion leaves many people with the false impression that the American Dream is some elusive thing that will only be found by the fortunate few, or the elite. This, of course, is not what it's about at all.
Take me for example. My family and I live in a relatively small house, oh, it's big enough for us, but gets easily cluttered because after living space, there's not much left over for storage. It's just a simple, humble one story single family home. My wife drives an '04 mini-van, while I drive a '95 sedan, again, both humble vehicles that won't stir envy in most people, but serve us well none the less. We are blessed with 2 great kids. We both work full time, and work hard to make ends meet. We are not rich, and likely never will be. The thing is, we are living the American Dream.
Let me explain. In it's simplest form, the American Dream is about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. You see, in times past, most immigrants did not come to the USA expecting the strike it rich, they dreamed of being able to get a job and own some property, and have the freedom to, within certain reasonable limits, live their lives the way they saw fit. That is to say, they dreamed of freedom. They dreamed of liberty. They wanted to be free from oppression, and to have the ability to work hard and, over time, earn enough money to buy a home that they could call their own. They didn't think they would be millionaire's, they just wanted to be free.
The American Dream, that is to say, the real American Dream, is really no different today. People in this great land have the ability to work hard and get to the place where they can own a home, own a car or two, depending on their needs, and raise their family, and live their lives as they see fit, within those reasonable limits. Many people are living the American Dream, they just don't know it because they don't understand what it is.
Those who deliberately push the distorted view of the American Dream do so for a reason. They want you to feel that you have not achieved the American Dream, but that you deserve to. They want you to feel that you have the right to be fully equal to all those celebrity's and sports stars and what not, and have everything that they have. Of course, this is impossible, if everyone were part of the elite, there would be no one to keep the country running. So, ultimately, this socialist agenda, which is what this view amounts to, means that everyone should end up having about the same amount of money and stuff, but, as a practical matter, everyone, except the elite, end up with very little.
What I'm saying is, take stock, look at how truly blessed you really are, and realize that if you give into the jealously being fostered by those in the media and on the far left, you will end up with far less than you have now, and, the American Dream that you are living now will be something that you truly will only have in your dreams.
Invariably when you hear it mentioned on the news, or on some talk show or something, you will hear people talking about some celebrity or sports star, who is making millions of dollars a year, or some other similarly rich person. This gross distortion leaves many people with the false impression that the American Dream is some elusive thing that will only be found by the fortunate few, or the elite. This, of course, is not what it's about at all.
Take me for example. My family and I live in a relatively small house, oh, it's big enough for us, but gets easily cluttered because after living space, there's not much left over for storage. It's just a simple, humble one story single family home. My wife drives an '04 mini-van, while I drive a '95 sedan, again, both humble vehicles that won't stir envy in most people, but serve us well none the less. We are blessed with 2 great kids. We both work full time, and work hard to make ends meet. We are not rich, and likely never will be. The thing is, we are living the American Dream.
Let me explain. In it's simplest form, the American Dream is about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. You see, in times past, most immigrants did not come to the USA expecting the strike it rich, they dreamed of being able to get a job and own some property, and have the freedom to, within certain reasonable limits, live their lives the way they saw fit. That is to say, they dreamed of freedom. They dreamed of liberty. They wanted to be free from oppression, and to have the ability to work hard and, over time, earn enough money to buy a home that they could call their own. They didn't think they would be millionaire's, they just wanted to be free.
The American Dream, that is to say, the real American Dream, is really no different today. People in this great land have the ability to work hard and get to the place where they can own a home, own a car or two, depending on their needs, and raise their family, and live their lives as they see fit, within those reasonable limits. Many people are living the American Dream, they just don't know it because they don't understand what it is.
Those who deliberately push the distorted view of the American Dream do so for a reason. They want you to feel that you have not achieved the American Dream, but that you deserve to. They want you to feel that you have the right to be fully equal to all those celebrity's and sports stars and what not, and have everything that they have. Of course, this is impossible, if everyone were part of the elite, there would be no one to keep the country running. So, ultimately, this socialist agenda, which is what this view amounts to, means that everyone should end up having about the same amount of money and stuff, but, as a practical matter, everyone, except the elite, end up with very little.
What I'm saying is, take stock, look at how truly blessed you really are, and realize that if you give into the jealously being fostered by those in the media and on the far left, you will end up with far less than you have now, and, the American Dream that you are living now will be something that you truly will only have in your dreams.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
When Tolerance Is Intolerant
With my Mom visiting this week, it has been difficult to find the time to sit down and come up with a new blog post, but I did find another great article from Greg Koukl, I hope you all enjoy it.
Matt
********************************
When Tolerance Is Intolerant
Gregory Koukl
There’s one word that can stop you in your track. That word is “tolerance.”
Let’s take a look at the confusing and mistaken ways tolerance is used in our culture today.
Using the modern definition of tolerance, you will see that no one is tolerant, or ever can be. It’s what my friend Frank Beckwith calls the “passive aggressive tolerance trick.” Let’s start with a real life example.
I had the privilege of speaking to seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines. I wanted to alert them to this “tolerance trick,” but I also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it. I began by writing two sentences on the board
"All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another."
“Jesus is the Messiah and Judaism is wrong for rejecting that.”
They all nodded in agreement as I wrote the first sentence. As soon as I finished writing the second, though, hands flew up. “You can’t say that,” a coed challenged, clearly annoyed. “That’s disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?”
“In fact, that happens to me all the time,” I pointed out, “including right now with you. But why should it bother me that someone thinks I’m wrong?”
“It’s intolerant,” she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn’t see was that the first statement also violated itself.
I pointed to the first statement and asked, “Is this a view, the idea that all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another?” They agreed.
Then I pointed to the second statement—the “intolerant” one—and asked the same question: “Is this a view?” They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them. They’d been taken in by the tolerance trick.
If all views have equal merit, then the view that Christians have a better view on Jesus than Jews is just as true as the idea that Jews have a better view on Jesus than Christians. But this is hopelessly contradictory. If the first statement is what tolerance amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because “tolerance” turns out to be gibberish.
“Would you like to know how to get out of this dilemma?” I asked. They nodded. “Return to the classic view of tolerance and reject this modern distortion.” Then I wrote these two principles on the board:
“Be egalitarian regarding persons.”
“Be elitist regarding ideas.”[1]
The first principle is true tolerance, what might be called “civility.” It can loosely be equated with the word “respect.” Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false. Tolerance requires that every person is treated courteously, no matter what her view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.
Don’t let this new notion of tolerance intimidate you. Treat all people with respect, but be willing to show them where their ideas have gone wrong. The modern notion of tolerance actually turns this value on its head. It’s one of the first responses deployed when you take exception with what someone has said. “You’re intolerant.”
To say I’m intolerant because I disagree with someone’s ideas is confused. The view that one person’s ideas are no better or truer than another’s is simply absurd and contradictory. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful definition or standard of tolerance.
The irony is that according to the classical notion of tolerance, you can’t tolerate someone unless you disagree with him. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to “put up” with. Tolerance is reserved for those who we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat them decently and with respect.
This essential element of classical tolerance—elitism regarding ideas—has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant no matter how you treat them.
Whenever you’re charged with intolerance, always ask for a definition, then point out the contradiction built in to this new view.
Most of what passes for tolerance today is intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement. Those who brandish the word “intolerant” are unwilling to be challenged by other views, to grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It’s easier to hurl an insult—“you intolerant bigot”—than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. In the modern era, “tolerance” has become intolerance.
As ambassadors for Christ, however, we choose the more courageous path. In Paul’s words, “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). In a gracious and artful way, we accurately speak the truth, and then trust God to transform minds.
[1] This way of putting it comes from Peter Kreeft.
Matt
********************************
When Tolerance Is Intolerant
Gregory Koukl
There’s one word that can stop you in your track. That word is “tolerance.”
Let’s take a look at the confusing and mistaken ways tolerance is used in our culture today.
Using the modern definition of tolerance, you will see that no one is tolerant, or ever can be. It’s what my friend Frank Beckwith calls the “passive aggressive tolerance trick.” Let’s start with a real life example.
I had the privilege of speaking to seniors at a Christian high school in Des Moines. I wanted to alert them to this “tolerance trick,” but I also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it. I began by writing two sentences on the board
"All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another."
“Jesus is the Messiah and Judaism is wrong for rejecting that.”
They all nodded in agreement as I wrote the first sentence. As soon as I finished writing the second, though, hands flew up. “You can’t say that,” a coed challenged, clearly annoyed. “That’s disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?”
“In fact, that happens to me all the time,” I pointed out, “including right now with you. But why should it bother me that someone thinks I’m wrong?”
“It’s intolerant,” she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn’t see was that the first statement also violated itself.
I pointed to the first statement and asked, “Is this a view, the idea that all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another?” They agreed.
Then I pointed to the second statement—the “intolerant” one—and asked the same question: “Is this a view?” They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them. They’d been taken in by the tolerance trick.
If all views have equal merit, then the view that Christians have a better view on Jesus than Jews is just as true as the idea that Jews have a better view on Jesus than Christians. But this is hopelessly contradictory. If the first statement is what tolerance amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because “tolerance” turns out to be gibberish.
“Would you like to know how to get out of this dilemma?” I asked. They nodded. “Return to the classic view of tolerance and reject this modern distortion.” Then I wrote these two principles on the board:
“Be egalitarian regarding persons.”
“Be elitist regarding ideas.”[1]
The first principle is true tolerance, what might be called “civility.” It can loosely be equated with the word “respect.” Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false. Tolerance requires that every person is treated courteously, no matter what her view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.
Don’t let this new notion of tolerance intimidate you. Treat all people with respect, but be willing to show them where their ideas have gone wrong. The modern notion of tolerance actually turns this value on its head. It’s one of the first responses deployed when you take exception with what someone has said. “You’re intolerant.”
To say I’m intolerant because I disagree with someone’s ideas is confused. The view that one person’s ideas are no better or truer than another’s is simply absurd and contradictory. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful definition or standard of tolerance.
The irony is that according to the classical notion of tolerance, you can’t tolerate someone unless you disagree with him. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to “put up” with. Tolerance is reserved for those who we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat them decently and with respect.
This essential element of classical tolerance—elitism regarding ideas—has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant no matter how you treat them.
Whenever you’re charged with intolerance, always ask for a definition, then point out the contradiction built in to this new view.
Most of what passes for tolerance today is intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement. Those who brandish the word “intolerant” are unwilling to be challenged by other views, to grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It’s easier to hurl an insult—“you intolerant bigot”—than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. In the modern era, “tolerance” has become intolerance.
As ambassadors for Christ, however, we choose the more courageous path. In Paul’s words, “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). In a gracious and artful way, we accurately speak the truth, and then trust God to transform minds.
[1] This way of putting it comes from Peter Kreeft.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Rescuing Sprite
And now, for the first time, two book reviews in a row.
I recently ordered "Rescuing Sprite" by Mark R. Levin, as a gift for my Mom, who is here, visiting from New York. The book arrived a few days before Mom did, and I was looking it over, and started to read the introduction, and ending up reading the entire book.
For anyone who is thinking that the authors name is familiar, Mark Levin is a Conservative Radio talk show host, and while I love his political commentary, there is none of that in this book whatsoever.
This book is about a man and his family, and their relationship with their dogs. Some people have made the mistake of thinking that strictly a dog book, and if you enter into it with that expectation, you probably won't like it, because that's not what it's about. It's about people and dogs, and the relationships that they share.
The writing style is kinda unique as well. At first I couldn't quite figure it out, but then it hit me, Mark wasn't writing in a classical writing style. It felt more like reading a letter from a dear old friend than it like reading a book.
From a literary standpoint, it was a quick and easy read, but from an emotional standpoint, there wasn't much that was all that easy about it.
Anyway, I really liked this book and highly recommend it.
I really think you'll enjoy reading this, especially if you're a dog lover.
I recently ordered "Rescuing Sprite" by Mark R. Levin, as a gift for my Mom, who is here, visiting from New York. The book arrived a few days before Mom did, and I was looking it over, and started to read the introduction, and ending up reading the entire book.
For anyone who is thinking that the authors name is familiar, Mark Levin is a Conservative Radio talk show host, and while I love his political commentary, there is none of that in this book whatsoever.
This book is about a man and his family, and their relationship with their dogs. Some people have made the mistake of thinking that strictly a dog book, and if you enter into it with that expectation, you probably won't like it, because that's not what it's about. It's about people and dogs, and the relationships that they share.
The writing style is kinda unique as well. At first I couldn't quite figure it out, but then it hit me, Mark wasn't writing in a classical writing style. It felt more like reading a letter from a dear old friend than it like reading a book.
From a literary standpoint, it was a quick and easy read, but from an emotional standpoint, there wasn't much that was all that easy about it.
Anyway, I really liked this book and highly recommend it.
I really think you'll enjoy reading this, especially if you're a dog lover.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Case For Christ
Another book review today.I recently read "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. A truly outstanding book. Written from the standpoint of someone on a meaningful search to find the truth about Jesus Christ.
When Lee Strobel set out on his own journey to find the truth, he did so in an unbiased manner, willing to take an honest look at whatever he found, but at the same time, he expected to confirm his Atheistic leanings. What he found was not what he expected.
In this book Strobel, using his background as a Journalist, and what he learned in Law School, to take the reader through something of a re-creation of his original quest, in the hope that others might find their way to the same answers that he did.
I won't take your time here explaining the points that are made in the book, I will just say that it is a great book and I highly recommend it to anyone, whether searching for truth, or already a Christian who still has some questions that they need some help with. Certainly a book that is well worth the read.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Am I Going to Hell?
I think the following article is quite helpful for Christians wanting to know how to handle some of the tougher questions that we may be asked as we try to reach the World for Christ. If anyone has any thoughts, please feel free to share them.
Matt
Am I Going to Hell? |
Gregory Koukl
Do you think that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?
I talked in the past about the difficulty in clarifying our communication of the need for salvation. Frankly, to a lot of people the message of Christianity is not going to be palatable, but at least we can make it clear. It will not be the kind of thing they will be happy with. Yet, at the same time, there are things we can do that make it clearer and not inappropriately put stumbling blocks in people's way. This is why I've often said that the Gospel is offensive enough all by itself. Don't add any more offense to it. But we should not take out the offense that is inherent to the Gospel, either. This is why we are not pluralists even though there is pressure to be pluralists or at least inclusivistic with the Gospel. At the same time, we don't want to communicate the exclusivity of Christ in such a way as to confound those people who are listening. Christians often say, "if you believe in Jesus you go to Heaven; if you don't believe in Jesus you go to Hell". Is that true? Well, it is true, but it doesn't communicate a sense of the true circumstance. It's not coherent to most people because it just seems bizarre why what one person thought about some guy who died 2000 years ago has anything to do with their eternal destiny. Whether they believe in him or not seems irrelevant to anything that might happen after we die. So we have often not been careful to communicate the sense of things. We need to be clear so that someone rejects the real message and not some incoherent mess that some Christian has handed him that they can't make sense of. So, I don't say, "if you believe in Jesus you go to Heaven, and if you don't believe you go to Hell," because this is misleading. I'd rather try to explain it more accurately. Many of you are familiar with the conversation I had with a fellow at Barnes and Noble in which he asked me a question. I was giving a talk there as part of the book on relativism that Dr. Frank Beckwith and I co-authored, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Since I was talking about it in the bookstore, he came up afterwards and started asking questions about Jesus. Instead of unloading this slogan on him, I asked him this question. Do you think that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished? He said, "Yes." I said, "Good, so do I." Second question, "Have you ever committed any moral crimes?" Pause. Then he said, "Yes, I guess I have." You know what I said to him? "So have I." This just took 30 seconds, right? Then I reflected back to him, "Look where we've come so far. We both believe that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished. And we both believe we've committed moral crimes. You know what I call that? Bad news." And it is bad news. Most people are concerned with doing what is right. That was one of the first things he told me. "I'm Jewish. I believe in morality. I believe in God. Why do I have to believe in your Jesus?" Here is a man who has some level of commitment to the moral life. The problem is, he knows that that commitment does not guarantee that he is going to live a fully moral life and he's aware of his own moral crimes. And so am I. Now what? That is the issue? We are guilty. That is the bad news. This is why it is so important to get the bad news before the good news. The bad news gives meaning to the good news. I was able to talk about the fact that now we both admit we have a problem, but that there is a solution that God has ordained. Since He is the one who is offended, He is the one who can call the shots on how to fix the problem. The answer is through His Son Jesus, who provides mercy because he took the rap for our crimes. We got off. He went to jail. A modern metaphor to put it in perspective. There at least is the sense of things about Jesus being the only way. I hear it even asked on TV. The question is often asked honestly, but I think most of the time it is asked for an inflammatory effect. The person who is asking the question is wording it very carefully because he knows precisely how the faithful evangelical Christian will respond. He is counting on it so that the Christian says something that sounds to the rest of the people to be bizarre. Therefore, they can discount what the Christian says. I don't want you to sound bizarre when you answer the question I am about to offer. I want you to sound sensible. Here is the question. Do you think I am going to Hell? Now the only person who asks that is a person who thinks you think they're going to Hell. Ninety per cent of the time they would ask it because they think you are nuts and they want other people to think you are nuts, too. They want to get you to say in public that people who disagree with you are going to Hell so that you will look silly and they will look good. How do you deal with that? The problem, of course, is, first of all, it's probably true they are going to Hell. Secondly, it doesn't communicate the sense of things and so it is misleading. The people who ask this are generally not criminals. It's going to be some nice guy who is basically good and sincere. You are in a tough spot. You are on the defensive already, you want to answer truthfully, but you know by giving a truthful answer you are going to play into his hands. Jesus faced this frequently. He always got out of it, and I'm going to give you a way to get out. Answer the question truthfully and don't sound like an idiot. It doesn't mean everyone is going to believe you, fall at your feet, and want to receive Christ, but at least you will be able to give a proper and appropriate answer to those who ask you to make a defense for the hope that is within you (2 Peter 3:15). The answer is simply this. When somebody says, "Do you think I am going to Hell?" and you think they are, you say something like, "Well, I believe in justice, do you?" "Yes." "What is justice but that people who are guilty get punished in an appropriate way to their guilt? I believe that people who are guilty pay for their crimes unless they have been pardoned." This is very straightforward language. It fits entirely with our culture. It is terminology that has meaning immediately. It is also terminology that the person you are talking with not only is familiar with but they agree with the concept. We both believe the same thing here: justice. If you have committed any moral crimes, if you have done anything wrong, I think you will be punished for them unless you receive pardon. The punishment for moral crimes is Hell. You are saying yes, I think you are going to Hell unless you receive Jesus. But you are putting it in terms that are making more sense to that individual. In fact, he has already affirmed the underlying concept, as well he should, because he believes in it. Most people believe in justice. It is built in. It is part of their moral intuition, the image of God in man that is being expressed. They clamor for justice. There is a place for mercy, and pardon. We both agree. From God's perspective, if you have committed any moral crimes, then you are going to be punished for them. You'll only receive God's punishment if you are guilty of something. Are you guilty of anything? What is so controversial about that? Don't want to be punished? God has a means for a pardon. That is the whole point of our conversation. I don't want to be punished either. I want to experience a pardon. See how that works? That's part of the tactical elements of communicating the knowledge truthfully. |
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©2001 Gregory Koukl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
