[bonus points if you recognize the artist from which I stole the title]
“No man ought to write at all, or even to speak at all, unless he thinks that he is in truth and the other man in error.” [and] “But if there be such a thing as mental growth, it must mean the growth into more and more definite convictions, into more and more dogmas. The human brain is a machine for coming to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded.” — G.K. Chesterton
The bulk of irrational haters who disagree with me tend to say things like “How can you be so arrogant as to think that you’re right and everyone else is wrong?” The simple answer is: it seems natural to me to argue in favor of things I think are correct, and against things I think are wrong. I don’t claim to speak for anyone else, but I would feel sort of stupid arguing in favor of things I thought were wrong.
Those who have drunk deeply from the wells of certain strands of post-modernism, however, seem to think it is an intellectual virtue never to come to any firm conclusions (except, of course, that those with firm conclusions can’t possibly be right). They then attack the “arrogance” of those who, crazily!, argue on behalf of what they have come to believe is correct.
Another favorite technique of the haters is to claim that, while they are still on their “journeys,” embracing “doubt,” those who hold passionately to their convictions must have been indoctrinated from birth with those convictions, rather than come by them honestly. It seems incredible to them that people might actually have thought about something enough to form a reasoned opinion on any given subject, especially religion. Then, instead of arguing the point at hand, they resort to name-calling and purely ad hominem attacks, along with four-letter words such as “Pharisee,” “self-righteous,” “hypocritical,” “judgmental.” It’s as if no one learns critical thinking anymore; the proof is in how few people can manage to get out a coherent sentence, complete with correctly spelled words and proper grammar, without falling back on smoke and mirrors.
The point is this: get over your sensitivity to people with whom you disagree and actually contribute to the argument. Don’t try to figure out someone’s motivation, unless they explicitly state it, and simply respond calmly and intelligently. Also, you might question, prior to hitting ’submit,’ whether you’re reading something into a comment that is not there. Really, it’s not that hard.
Okay, okay. So people don’t like what I say or the way I say it. Specifically, with regard to David Bazan. (How many times do I have to say that I like his music, have nearly everything he’s put out, and have not stopped listening to him since he said the word ‘fuck’?) I rarely have comments on anything; but dare to say something negative about someone’s idol, and watch the comments roll in.
I write things as strongly as I feel I can. That’s a problem sometimes. But it means that when people read what I write, they think they’ve got me figured out. For what it’s worth, I’m not a Fundamentalist; I’m not a legalist; I’m not a Pharisee (most of the time); and I’m not part of the Christian, commercialistic ghetto (really, Stephy, I think this blog is funny. Do those shirts that change secular slogans to Christian clichés bother anyone else?).
I can be brought to my knees by the slicing accusation of the Law, and perhaps that was necessary with some of the things I said about Bazan, or at least the way they were perceived. I was really only trying to say two things: no one can be objective (ever) and parents have a God-given responsibility to their children. That’s it. If I obscured my points with polemic, I apologize. If I misread Bazan, I apologize. It was a printed interview, and as blogs and e-mails prove, these mediums cannot be used without misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
I started blogging because things pissed me off. And my wife didn’t want to hear it. So here it is, for anyone to read. But I try to justify my polemic with reason and argument (that word has a positive connotation for me). That’s where the discussion should be, not on who can think of the most creative (or uncreative) names to call someone.
So, for what it’s worth, maybe don’t assume you know someone from a few words on a computer screen; and I’ll try to do the same.
There. Doesn’t that make it look better? At least he’ll only “bless” the aborted fetus; “baptisms” are only for still-born fetuses. (Or is that feti?)
I’d like to rip off that collar and slap him in the face with it. (Only in my mind, of course. I’m personally opposed to violence against abortuary chaplains; but who am I to keep others from exercising their right to choose collar-violence?)
Dr. George Tiller, the infamous abortionist from Wichita, KS, was killed in the lobby of his church today. I cannot believe that anyone who is against abortion still thinks it’s okay to use vigilante methods as a means to the end of fewer abortions. Murder is murder is murder, whether of a baby in the womb or of one who murders them. The person who did this should receive a sentence commensurate with his/her crime (which, incidentally, is what Tiller should have gotten).
Also, idiots who murder people for being murderers bring out the crazy Left:
“Dr. Tiller was a fearless, passionate defender of women’s reproductive health and rights,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, based in New York, which had worked on a legal case related to Dr. Tiller. “It’s time that this nation stop demonizing these doctors, and start honoring them.”
The “nation” is not demonizing abortion doctors. Only the lunatic fringe views a legal practice as being demonized. And I believe Dr. Tiller was already honored with a reception in the Kansas governor’s mansion (the same governor whom Pres. Obama tapped for Director of Health and Human Services).
God says, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay”; hence, no vigilante justice.
On a side note, you get one guess as to which variety of Lutheran Tiller was.
From Rev. Paul McCain at Concordia Publishing House:
As many of you are aware, Concordia Publishing House has been working hard at producing and publishing The Lutheran Study Bible. This work began nearly six years ago, and the title of the Bible was announced publicly a long time ago. We learned a year or so ago that the ELCA was producing a Bible and that they decided to call it: “Lutheran Study Bible.” The ELCA Bible is now in print. I encourage you, particularly if you are a pastor, to advise your folks that the ELCA Bible is not The Lutheran Study Bible by CPH. The two Bibles are quite different in content, style and purpose. Most significantly, the ELCA Bible takes a different approach on key doctrinal points than does The Lutheran Study Bible. So, please be aware, and spread the word, that The Lutheran Study Bible is coming, from CPH, in October 2009, and that the ELCA Bible is something quite different. Be sure to point people to The Lutheran Study Bible web site, or its Facebook Group, or Twitter feed. I respectfully request and encourage you to share this blog post on your blog site, e-mails, congregation newsletters, etc.
First, the Obama policy is itself blatantly political. It is red meat to his Bush-hating base, yet pays no more than lip service to recent scientific breakthroughs that make possible the production of cells that are biologically equivalent to embryonic stem cells without the need to create or kill human embryos. Inexplicably — apart from political motivations — Mr. Obama revoked not only the Bush restrictions on embryo destructive research funding, but also the 2007 executive order that encourages the National Institutes of Health to explore non-embryo-destructive sources of stem cells.
Second and more fundamentally, the claim about taking politics out of science is in the deepest sense antidemocratic. The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science. It is a question about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity.
What is “anti-science” is pushing a political agenda on the back of measures intended to pacify the rabid, anti-life Left–when science is moving in the opposite direction. As everyone should know by now, embryonic stem cells (apart from their very nature as human-life-destroying) have made possible no new cures at all, while adult stem cells, and the advances in producing pluripotent stem cells from other sources (e.g., the umbilical cord), have produced multiple treatments. This executive order is anti-science by definition.
idiot: quoting an (unnamed) “international human rights attorney” (I heard you laugh!) to the effect that for the past eight years we have, unbeknownst to all but the left-wing, lunatic fringe, been living in a, quote, dictatorship, unquote.
Man, usually after eight years someone would have gotten wind of all the killings, political imprisonments, censorship, blatant propaganda, suppression of all voices but the State’s…or is that only in the Communist dictatorships? I forget. Anyway, good thing we have ol’ Keith to keep us up to date on what we didn’t know by quoting “international human rights attorneys.” Otherwise, we never would have known about the dictatorship of the past eight years, which Comrade, er…The Anointed One, er…OMG, er…President Obama has only now saved us from. Who knows what would have happened to all of Fuehrer Bush’s political enemies if Holy Obama hadn’t come along?
The recommendation consists of four interconnected resolutions. Each takes a step in the decision-making process. The decisions are to be taken one by one: if the first is approved, then the second, third, and fourth are considered, but only if the preceding ones have been approved.
Step One
Step one asks the assembly whether, in principle, it is committed to finding ways to allow congregations and synods that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships.
Step Two
Step two asks the assembly whether, in principle, this church is committed to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church.
Step Three
Step three asks this church whether, in the future implementation of these commitments, it will make decisions so that all in this church bear the burdens of the other, and respect the bound consciences of all. This means that any solution that serves only the conscience-bound positions of one or another part of this church will not be acceptable.
Step Four
Step four proposes how this church can move toward change in a way that respects the bound consciences of all. It recognizes that such respect will lead to diversity of practice. However, the majority of the task force believes that the conscience-bound lack of consensus will be respected most faithfully by providing some structured flexibility in decision-making so that congregations and synods may choose whether or not to approve or call people in publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve on ELCA rosters.
From the FAQ:
How would “structured” flexibility (#4) affect those Lutherans who are convinced that there should not be any changes to ELCA’s present policy regarding people in lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships?
If this approach to structured flexibility were adopted, it would still protect any congregation, candidacy committee, synod, or bishop by not requiring them to violate bound conscience by approving, calling, commissioning, consecrating, or ordaining anyone in a publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationship.
This will absolutely never work. It will be impossible to prevent the agenda from also consuming such “protected” congregations, etc. And what could possibly be the argument for allowing such conscientious objectors to resist this new move of the spirit?
Sign the petition. (Didn’t they learn from the last time not to make Issues fans mad?)
UPDATE: The opposition to Harry Madsen acquiring the trademark for “Issues, Etc.” has been withdrawn “with prejudice” (whatever that means–can anyone explain?) [Thanks to Dan at NR for the link, via the Brothers]
Abstinence (”chastity” would be a better word) is only unrealistic for those who don’t practice it.
The teen said she wanted to tell her story so that other young people might think twice about having sex.
“I’d love to [be] an advocate to prevent teen pregnancy because it’s not, like, a situation that you would want to strive for, I guess,” Bristol said.
You don’t want to be too hard on a teenager, but isn’t, like, “like,” out of fashion yet? How does she plan to be an advocate to prevent teen pregnancy if she doesn’t think abstinence is realistic? Because, really, who wants to, like, wear a condom?
