The Republican Party has been made up of three groups over the past decades. Hugh Hewitt lays them out well in is book, If It’s Not Close They Can’t Cheat. In my own words they are:
1) National Security- this base is made of those who favor strong military and the development of new military technologies to enhance our readiness and power.
2) Business Class- this base favors the lower taxes, fewer economic restraints, and the freedom of trade to drive their dollars.
3) Religious- this base believes that their conservative religious beliefs should dictate not only personal choices but political choices as well. They are predominantly Protestant.

These values have been the driving force of the Republican Party while the Democrats have been distinguished in areas of big government (more federal spending, unions, etc), multiculturalism (mostly on the surface), and human autonomy (pro-choice, same-sex marriage, etc.).

While I still firmly believe that Protestants, as well as other religious conservatives, should vote Republican, I think the party bases are shifting. Each party is becoming a two-base party. The Republicans are becoming the Capitalist Party and the Democrats are becoming the Socialist Party.

Within the Capitalist Party the most defining people are those who favor a government that allows independent organizations to succeed and excel without being infringed upon. They value an economic system that encourages people from all backgrounds to invest and produce and gives everyone that opportunity. In addition to that base, it will also remain strong on national security. I’m continually surprised by Democrats whom I see voting for Bush because of his strong stance in the War on Terror. Actor Rob Silver, a well known liberal, said, “The President is doing exactly the right thing!” It’s not that the religious base of the Republican Party is being dropped; it’s that one’s conservative religious beliefs no longer determine one’s party. Several of the RNC speakers and leaders are pro-choice, pro gun control, and not really religious. Those issues have faded into the background of the economic and national security issues.

The Socialist Party is made of those who favor big government. They want to see everyone make the same amount of money (everyone ends up equally poor) while the government determines what businesses are allowed to do, where they can find employment, and how much they can make. In the words of that disingenuous filmmaker Michael Moore, “Capitalism is evil.” The secondary base will remain humanistic values. The woman’s “right” to choose to kill her unborn (it doesn’t matter if it’s human or not), each person’s “right” to choose who they will marry (regardless of the impact it has on children), etc. are issues that reflect a naturalist faith in humanity rather than one in a God. These people, ironically, see anyone who holds that these are moral issues are wrong. In essence, if a person believes that it’s wrong to kill the unborn or wrong to marry the same sex, that person is evil.

I saw this dichotomy filled out in the Governor’s speech this evening. Here is a man who is pro-choice, pro-gun control, in the middle on same-sex marriage, etc., yet feels very strongly that the Republican Party is the right party to be a part of:

“If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government ... then you are a Republican! If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group ... then you are a Republican! If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does ... then you are a Republican! If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children ... then you are a Republican! If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world ... then you are a Republican! And, ladies and gentlemen ... if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism ... then you are a Republican!”

These are the new defining characteristics of the Republican Party; the most important element being capitalism and pride in our national heritage. I believe that these values will be what shape the future of the party, and the future debates of America. The Democrats will continue going further left, and the Republicans will continue to pick up the moderates they leave behind. The Republican tent is getting bigger because the values of the part are shifting. The questions to consider when selecting a candidate are shifting from directly moral questions to questions about the very nature of our system of government and economics. Two or three elections from now that central issue will be should we have a Socialist big government or a Capitalist limited government.

I've only watched a couple of minutes of RNC coverage, but before it really gets up and going I'd like to put out there what I want to see and what I think will be good for the RNC.

1) Major emphasis on strong leadership through the tragedy of 9/11 and the War on Terror. These two things should not and must not be separated. America would have faltered with a different person in office and we would not have taken such a strong stance against terrorism without Bush.

2) Emphasis on strong recovering economy. In light of the difficulties 9/11 wrought America has done exceptionally well economically. The recent abundance of job growth and the ability to raise interest rates without adversely effecting growth speaks volumes about what America has been able to do under Bush leadership.

3) Emphasis on moral integrity of Bush and his administration and its foundation in a transcendent God. Some people disagree that God should be brought into politics. However, our decisions must be founded in some system of beliefs, whether based on God or something else. Part of the strength of the Bush administration is that it is deeply rooted in a belief that God's commands should dictate the decisions we make in our lives and as a government.

4) Stay away from Swift Boats and the 527 issue in general. Bush should say something affirming Kerry's service and move on to the important issues facing the voters in this election. The DNC put Michael Moore in a revered position. The Swift Boat guys may be very respectable and entirely accurate, but they are not part of the RNC and should not be showcased there.

Something more light hearted for the weekend. This is a short book (I just read it in an hour) online about how a guy can get a gal. It was written by Matt Slick, apologetic missionary to the internet at www.carm.org (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry).

How to woo and win women by being an obnoxious jerk

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Regarding the Wooing of Women
Jerk Quotient
Making a Good Impression?
What does a Woman Want? A Real Man
Girl Logic
The Proper Use of Confusion
What Not to Say to a Woman
Being a Sensitive Man
How to be interesting
******* - title had to be changed due to a legal threat. sheesh..
Live to Dress or Dress to Live
You and Female Hormones
The Mothering Instinct
Conversation? What's That?
Last Things

Have fun...

Today I had the honor of meeting General Tommy Franks, the Army General who led our successful campaigns into Afghanistan and Iraq. This time, as you can see, I actually got some decent pictures since I brought a real camera. (I guess I'll just have to see Newt again to get better pics.) It was not only an honor because of the great things he has done, but also his mannerism. He never talked from behind the podium. He was very personal, friendly, and open about his thoughts and feelings. I was surprised at his great sense of humor, as it seemed we didn't go a minute without laughing.
The General didn't go into any long politic speeches or diatribes, but told stories from his career and the important events which took place throughout his career. On the morning of September 11th, 2001, General Franks was on a plane to Pakistan to talk to their President about getting support for action against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. His plane stopped in Crete for fuel and it was there that he found out about the terrible events of that day. The next day, the 12th, Rumsfeld called and asked him what he thought. He said, "Bin Laden. Al Qaeda. The Taliban." Rumsfeld's response, "What are you going to do about it?" The answer is now history, and a proud history at that.
General Franks calls September 11th a crease in America's history. On this side of the crease we face a new world, a new type of warfare, and new priorities.
As the General pointed out, there are only two options in regards to our position on terrorism. A- We fight the battle on their turf. B- We fight the battle here. This should be a no brainer. Bush has taken the battle to the terrorists and wants to keep it there. Kerry will only fight after being attacked. In his own words, "I will not hesitate to respond with force if America was attacked." What are you going to do about it?

(Note: I'm not associated with this group, but would like you to be aware of this as a means of support.)
Where do you go when you need shelter from the storm? For some of the elderly in Tijuana, Mexico they find it at "El Refugio," known in English as "The Refuge." This house, administrated by Christians is a safe place for the vulnerable elderly to gather and find aid. The Refuge takes in those that have been discarded and displaced by society. The families of those living at the Refuge do not have the resources to take care of them and Mexico does not have a system in place to aid the elderly. For example, one man was literally found in the dumps, and another at the edge of the railroad tracks. The Refuge nursed them both back to health, as it has so many others.In the winter of their lives, many of Mexico's elderly cannot care for themselves. Were it not for the ministry they could be overtaken by their circumstances and perhaps even die. Not only do these helpless elderly need the aid of the Refuge, but the Refuge itself also needs renovation and expansion to better serve its residents. In spite of this great need, the residents and ministers at the Refuge have hope because thy see God at work in their midst. You can also have a huge impact for good in the lives of these people.Sonrise will be going into Tijuana the weekend of October 8-10, 2004 to build a unit that will house some of these people. We invite you to participate by joining us in prayer, becoming a builder or helping to fund the project. We look forward to your help and support for the sake of the downtrodden in Mexico.Thank you,Sonrise Westside Community Church

For more information about joining us, contact:
Awilda JimenezSonriseMissions@hotmail.com 310-869-0860

To make a tax-deductible donation, make checks out to:
Sonrise Westside Community Church
C/O Mexico Refuge Building Project
PO Box 13064
Marina del Rey, CA 90295-4064

Many of my regulars probably know that the best television show ever was the A-Team. I wished I'd thought of this, but I didn't, so I can only pass it along. This guy poses some terrorists threats and the solutions that the A-Team would come up with. I figure it's a good break from all the theology. Here's my favorite:

Threat: Shipping containers packedwith explosive materials.
Solution: Tranquilize B.A. with drugged powdered donut. Fly drugged B.A. to Pakistan, to meet Face and Hannibal, both disguised as radical clerics. Locate plans for ship-container plot employing the seductive help of token female member of A-Team. Hide B.A. in shipping container. Upon arrival at American port, have B.A. burst from shipping container in dune buggy he crafted from materials found in container. Have Hannibal chew cigar and deliver line, "I love it when a plan comes together."

There's a few others here: The A-Team Resolves Lapses in Homeland Security.

(Hat tip Amy Hall)

The issue of "prophecy" is riddled with confusion these days because much of the discussion about uses Biblical language without referring to Biblical teaching. In the Old Testament, God defined for us what a prophet is. (Deut. 18:18-22)
18"'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 'It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. 20 'But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' 21 "You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22 "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."
So, a prophet is someone who speaks the words of God. It's not what they think God is telling them, but the very words that God has commanded them to speak. The obvious question is raised in the text, how do we know if someone is a prophet, i.e. speaking the commandments of God? If what they say is demonstrated false. So here's the simple test. If someone claims to be a prophet and what they say is God's word comes true, then they most likely are. If even one thing they say is God's word does not come true, then they are not a prophet. The guidelines are strict. God doesn't say, "If they're mostly right then they are from me." He says that if any one thing does not come to pass then they have not spoken for the Lord and are therefore a false prophet.
The text also tells us that if someone claims to speak the word of God and they are not speaking His word then there is a penalty, that prophet will die. Deut 13:5 tells Israel to put to death false prophets and dreamers. (see also Jer 23:25-34, Ez 14:9-10, Zech 13:3) The point is that to speak falsely in the name of God is serious business, and we should not claim to unless we are absolutely certain that God has commanded us to.
Everything I've cited so far is OT. What about now? There's nothing to suggest that prophecy ended with the NT. Are there prophets post-NT? Paul seemed to think so (Rom 12:6), "And since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let each excercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith." The terminology between OT and NT changed from the calling of a prophet, to the gifting of a prophet. (That's another topic that I'll blog on some time later.) However, the idea is still the same. God has given His commands to specific people and they have a responsibility to prophecy in God's name accurately. The fact that it's a gift means that only certain Christians get it. Not every Christian is a prophet. Not every Christian receives personal revelation from God. But, according to Paul, some do.
If you flip on the TV you’ll see plenty of false prophets. Those are obvious. But the way in which many of us speak sometimes frightens me. When we say things like, “God called me to do this…” or “God wants me to tell you…” or “God told me that…” we are making very serious claims. If God did not in fact do as we claim we are putting words in God’s mouth and preaching a false word. The best solution is to never use that sort of language, unless of course God specifically told you to.
In response to my brother Mark, prophets don’t always follow God themselves. They may be prophets, but they’re still sinners. Jonah is an obvious example. He had the word of God, but refused to follow it. Simply because someone claims to be prophet fails at something doesn’t mean they aren’t one. The only disqualification is if the word the claim came from God is shown to have not come from Him.
In regards to the testing of a prophet, obviously some things are easy to say like, “You’re going to drive away tomorrow.” I think we can use common sense in determining what claims constitute claims of prophecy and which don’t. Notice earlier that I said if what they say comes true then they are most likely a prophet. There is the possibility of coincidence. But through the OT & NT prophecies were made about very clearly about major things. Like if a foreign invaded would succeed, or if the King had committed a specific sin. It gets to the point that you have to admit that there’s likely more than coincidence going on, especially if they’re never wrong (otherwise they’re automatically disqualified).
Why do we need prophets today if the Bible is sufficient? The Bible is sufficient for us to make moral decisions. If we follow the Bible completely, we will always make decisions that honor God. However, sometimes there are circumstances where one option is better than another, even if both would honor God. So in regard to decision making, I could see where God may want to intervene to point out a better option. Not that this happens often, but it’s a possible situation where a prophet would be required today. If we look back at David’s example, David knew that laying with Bathsheba and killing her husband was wrong. But God still sent a prophet to convict him. Similarly, I could see God sending a prophet to condemn people today of specific sins. And since Paul says that there are those with the gift of prophecy, I think this is in line with the NT.
The main point of all of this is that we’ve gotten carried away with our use of “prophetic” language. We changed the meaning of prophecy to include things that really aren’t prophecy and we’ve elevated all Christians to prophets. Most Christians aren’t and when they put words in God’s mouth that scares me.

I love Something Like Silas. Not just their worship music, but they're good friends too. Which is why it grieves me that one of their songs is based almost completely on unBiblical theology. No, I'm not calling them heretics or anything of the sort, but I think this song is a good example of some current theology that's in almost every church that really has no Biblical foundation. The song is called "Words That You Say."
"Speak in this close communion. Though this hour seems timeless still. I wait for your words that bid me come. Breathe in me, Holy Spirit. The Will when my tomorrow comes, to follow when this song is gone. [Chorus] So I await the words that you say, I open my life. I'm longing just to hear these words, that you say, that you say." (There's a second verse and bridge that don't apply here.)
The music is nice, and the words are poetic. But the words reflect a theological problem most Christians suffer from. It is the idea that God somehow speaks to us in individual and personal ways on a regular basis. This theology invades pastor's sermons, prayers, worship services, and personal devotion times. It's so prevalent that it's almost difficult to name a current Christian leader who hasn't' used such language, even though few have taken the time to see if it's Biblically accurate.
Let me make this as clear as possible: There is NO Biblical justification for the idea that God is going to give you personal, private messages. None at all. I am not saying that God can't, He can do whatever He wants. However, the Biblical model is that IF God is going to communicate some new revelation, then He does so through a prophet and that prophet communicates the message to those whom the message applies to. So I'm not denying the gift of prophecy. I know a prophet and God's used her in countless ways. What I'm denying is the idea that every Christian somehow gets the gift of prophecy. There's no verse or passage in the Bible that tells us that. It tells us that God gives us each different gifts and that we are not to be jealous of other people's gifts.
Some have objected to this by saying that if God doesn't communicate to us privately (and I'm not sure even what God "speaking" or "communicating" entails), then how are we supposed to know what to do? I believe this entire venture into personalized theology is laziness. People would rather listen for God's voice and try to interpret situations as signs than do the hard work of studying the Bible. Friends, God has spoken, He is not silent. His Word is still with us and very much applies to our lives today. The Bible is sufficient- it contains all that we need in order to make wise, God-glorifying decisions. We do not need new revelation for our lives today, nor does the Bible teach that God is going to give it to us.
Too many Christians sit and wait for God's voice. As the song said, "I wait for your words that bid me come." God has already called us, we don't need to wait for Him to call us again. We are called to be holy and worship Him. But too many sit and wait, listening to the breeze; when God would rather us get off our bums and be active in worship and discipleship.
Furthermore, people who believe that God speaks to them are often confused about what exactly God is trying to say. As if God can't be clear and doesn't know how to communicate to His creation. If God wants to tell you something, it's going to be a supernatural event and there will be no question as to what it is He said. When God speaks, you will know. But what passes for the voice of God these days is a melting pot of emotions, hopes, situations, and bad theology.

Further evidence that the left, the liberals, the Democratic Party (whatever you may wish to call them) are irrational and lack moral foundation…
1) They are irrational- Many have now heard or at least heard about the Swift Boat Veteran attack ads running in a few select states. They question Kerry’s ability to lead, his medals, and his honesty. The ads are an extension of their new book, Unfit for Command. The core of the criticism lies in the accusation that Kerry has been lying about his Vietnam record for more than 30 years. This has profound implications for the election because a) Kerry has built up his credibility solely on his Vietnam record, b) If it’s true, then he has bashed and shamed the honor and dignity of his fellow veterans, and c) If it’s true, then the events that Kerry has designated the “defining moment” of his life are fabrications or exaggerations and there is likely little that we can believe from what he says.
These claims are no doubt important, whether they are true or not. The manner in which Kerry has responded lays bear the irrationality of the party he represents. First, Kerry began running counter ads with veterans who supported him. While it may be that there are some veterans who sincerely believe that Kerry would make a great President, those veterans have nothing to do with the ones attacking him. Second, the Kerry campaign today filed a complaint to the FEC claiming that the Swift Boat group is working in cooperation with the Bush campaign, which is illegal. As far as I’ve seen, they’ve offered one piece of circumstantial evidence to substantiate this claim- That Bush has been friendly with a supporter of the veterans. Big deal. Reagan and Gorbachev spent a decent amount of time together, does that mean Gorbachev helped orchestrate Reagan’s re-election? More specifically, the supporter in question, Bob Perry, has given thousands of dollars to various Bush campaigns and $200,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans. Sorry Kerry, but that’s not against the law. Simply because Perry likes to support both groups does not suggest that there is some sort of conspiracy going on between them all. If it were illegal, Kerry would have to return all of the money he’s received from people who have supported Moveon.org and other liberal 527s.
The real problem with the Kerry campaigns actions, aside from being unjustified, is that it’s logically fallacious. They have proposed a red herring. Very specific accusations have been made against Kerry and thus far he has not deal with the specific accusations. Instead, he continues to chant his mantra that he’s a great war veteran. Whether that’s true or not is beside the point. The longer Kerry puts up this red herring and refuses to answer the allegations made against him, the more people are going to believe that the allegations are true.
2) They lack moral foundation- In all of this mess of accusations it has been made clear who maintains honorable character and who doesn’t. The Bush campaign has continually stated that it will not question Kerry’s Vietnam service (a position I agree with)- even though Kerry has maliciously attacked Bush’s National Guard Service. In response, Bush supplied the appropriate records that were available and let the facts speak for themselves. The Swift Boat Veterans are an independent group who are criticizing Kerry’s record. Despite the evidence put forth by the group, the Bush Campaign has continued its stance of silence on the issue. As noted above, the appropriate, rational response to these attacks is to provide the proper documents and evidence and let the truth speak for itself. Instead of Kerry doing this, he has once again maliciously lashed out against the Bush campaign. Not just in action, but in word. Kerry spokeswoman Cutter said today, “"Mr. McClellan [Bush spokesman] needs to understand that John Kerry is not the type of leader who will sit and read `My Pet Goat' to a group of second graders while America is under attack.”
Bush sat with the students for 7 minutes after he received the news of the first attack. But what did Kerry do? He sat in an office with a few other senators doing nothing for more than 40 minutes. No, Kerry wouldn’t be sympathetic to students, he’d just sit around not caring about what’s going on around him. Of course, this once again is beside the point. All McClellan stated was that there were no formal ties between the Bush Campaign and the Swift Boat Vets. In response, the Kerry Campaign personally attacks the President. The Kerry Campaign’s confusion continues…”“Out of desperation, the Bush campaign has picked the wrong fight with the wrong veteran,” said Jim Jordan, former Kerry campaign manager who now runs an outside group airing ads against Bush. “Today’s the start of the mother of all backlashes.” Apparently they forgot that Bush has never attacked Kerry’s Vietnam record and the Kerry is the challenger, not Bush. But hmmm… Mr. Jordan is a former Kerry aid and now runs an “outside group.” Sounds like there’s a formal tie illegal tie there don’t you think?Not only are the Kerry campaigns responses irrational, but their personal attacks against the President are baseless and a disgrace to politics and politicians. Everyone simply needs to stick to the facts. Since Kerry won’t do that, it at least appears that the facts aren’t on his side.

Sources: Kerry Complains to FEC Over Ads
Kerry says Bushbroke the lawin TV ad dispute

See my previous post and this headline article for context: Google bans Christian ad

Here's some of Greg Koukl's comments on the issue:
"We are not playing the martyr on this. We want to draw attention to the general tactic. It effectively silences opposition through intimidation. People are discouraged from speaking out for fear of being labeled "hateful" or "intolerant." The problem is that Google--and the rest that use this tactic--refuses to define the word "hate." Virtually any definition that would disqualify Stand to Reason, is going to disqualify Google by the same standard. Ironically, Google's company motto is "Don't do evil," a sentiment that itself requires Google to make judgments identifying some things as evil. Are they then promoting hate? Go figure." (from an email from Greg.)

What Google is doing is what we philosophically call, "self-referentially absurd." Their position disqualifies themselves. From their perspective, if you are passing critical judgment on a position, then that amounts to hate and is unacceptable. The result is that they critical judge us and discriminate against us. Now if go to Google and type in key words like "same-sex marriage," you will find no ads against homosexuality. Instead, almost of all of them are in favor of it. A search on "homosexuality" shows a site that argues it's Biblically acceptable. Of course, this isn't balanced with the truth of what the Bible says about it. By Google's actions, they have disqualified themselves from being fair, balanced, and objective, to aligning themselves with the agenda driven, left-leaning media.

This story has already generated quite a bit of publicity. http://www.outletradio.com/, which someone described as the “gay version of Google,” has linked to the article has invited us to advertise on their site instead of Google. Fortunately there are some people out there who are truly tolerant. Additionally, a number of radio programs have requested interviews with Melinda and Greg (where’s my interview?).

UPDATE: The story spreads: Google Refuses to Run Ad from Christian Group
(Ironically, this turned up in a search on Google.)

UPDATE 2: This was in today's email from Family News in Focus:
TAKE ACTION: If you want to let Google know about what youthink of them barring a advertisement because it did notpresent a pro-homosexual point of view, please see thecontact information below for their CEO Eric Schmidt.Phone: 650-623-4000Fax: 650-618-1499. To e-mail the AdWords group that took down the ad inquestion, please see its Web form at:https://adwords.google.com/select/main?cmd=ContactUs

UPDATE 3: Another article on WordlNetDaily.com that exposes more problems with Google:
Google bars 'hate' sites' ads, but runs porn ads

I didn't think we were going public with this, but now that it's a headline on a major internet media site, I suppose we are. The ministry I work for, Stand to Reason, has placed a few ads on Google, however, they have pulled one of them citing "hate" content on www.str.org. What it boils down to: saying that something is wrong or immoral amounts to hate.
Read the article with all the details here: Google bans Christian ad Anti-homosexual remarks considered 'hate' content

(I'll be back in a few hours to expand my comments on this.)

Lately I've been very absent minded. I forgot to bring a paper to school to turn in (even though I'd printed it out). I forgot to do something major at my work. It's like I'm living in one big brain fart. Too what can I attribute this vacation? I'm sure it's a number of things, but I'd like to blame it on my Buddhism class. I'm quite certain that the professor, although he has a wealth of knowledge on the subject, is insane. Not to mention that when a Westerner tries to dig into the religion they are like a spaceship lost in space. The professor actually things he's doing a great job when most of the class has no idea what he's talking about.
We've now moved on from Indian Buddhism to Zen Buddhism. It doesn't make any more sense, but it is more entertaining. Take this teaching from Master Lin-Chi for instance (#26):

The Master asked a Monk, "Where did you come from?"
The monk gave a shout.
The Master bowed slightly and motioned for him to sit down.
The monk was about to say something, whereupon the Master struck him a blow.

The Master saw a monk coming and held his fly whisk straight up.
The monk made a low bow, whereupon the Master struck him a blow.
The Master saw another monk coming and again held his fly whisk straight up.
The monk paid no attention, whereupon the Master struck him a blow as well.

And with that depth of religious insight, I'm going back to my fascination with the USA Women's Softball team. Currently 3-0 over China in the 3rd inning. Go team!

I've noticed most of the conservative, usually Christian, blogs I frequent have not said much about the new Swift Boat book and ensuing controversy, if they've said anything at all. Hopefully you won't mind me breaking the silence to share a few thoughts on it. I think we can draw a correlation between Moore's attacks in Fahrenheit 9/11 and the Swift Boat Veteran's attacks, particularly in Unfit for Command. Content aside, looking only at strategy, methods, and positions, we may be able to look at both of these as extreme personal attacks on the candidates from opposite polarities. Many people were turned off by Moore's abuse of documentary filmmaking and accusations, and I think many are turned off by the Veteran's attacking Kerry's Vietnam record. The appropriate thing to do, whether the attacks are justified or not, is to separate the campaigns from the attackers. These people, on each side, are typically not going to interest moderate America, and if affiliated with a party, will push the moderate voters in the opposing direction. The problem for the Democrat's is that they embraced their extreme left and made it the core of their party. Michael Moore was repeatedly honored during the Democratic Convention, and was sat next to former President Jimmy Carter. There was a report in June, which I don't think has been verified, that the DNC is purchasing a half-million DVDs of the film to fundraise with. The extreme personal attacks of the left have become the platform of the Democratic Party. Contrast to the right. There is no connection between the Republican Party and the Swift Boat Veterans. Most Conservatives have taken an attitude of, "If they want to attack his Vietnam record that's fine, I'll stay out of it since I'm a civilian." And this is the party line of the Republican Party. In an interview on Hugh Hewitt's show earlier this week, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "we have never said anything negative about Senator Kerry's record in Vietnam, and I think anybody who served over there deserves the thanks of the American people, and with respect to the details of what did or didn't happen while he was there, I'll leave that to others." On one hand, as civilians, many of us should respect Kerry's service in Vietnam and the veterans work out those details. On the other, Kerry's Vietnam record has been the central feature of his campaign. Somehow, if we see what he did for 4 months in Vietnam, we will see that he has all the answers to today's problems. Newt Gingrich pointed out that it's as though Kerry just woke up from a coma, or has amnesia. The last thing he remembers is Vietnam, and he just came back to the States. In fact, he landed at the Democratic Convention and "reported for duty." If he really wants us to ignore everything he's done since Vietnam, shouldn't we have the right to criticize his Vietnam record? Enter the Swift Boat Veterans. Can we trust them? What if they're lying? Those questions we can't answer until the book hits the shelves, but much has been said about the one chapter that's been released as a preview. It calls into question how Kerry got his medals. That is something I'd prefer to stay away from. They may be right that he shouldn't have gotten the medals, but he has them, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that unless he says otherwise. There's another part of the chapter, however, that I think is appropriate for us to deal with. John Kerry has claimed, on numerous occasions, that he was in Cambodia Christmas Eve of 1968, by order of President Nixon. He said that this memory is "seared-seared in my mind," and that it was the turning point of his life. He's told this story countless times since Vietnam, but now he's "corrected the record."
"On Wednesday, the Kerry campaign acknowledged that John Kerry probably was not in Cambodia on Christmas 1968, contrary to the senator's decades-old assertion. Speaking on Fox News' "Fox and Friends," Kerry campaign aide Jeh Johnson said, "John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the record to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date." Recall that this is the date that Mr. Kerry, speaking on the Senate floor in 1986, said was "seared" into him. " (Washington Post.)
Kerry was “mistaken” about a story he’s been telling for 30 years, and has “corrected the record” to account for the fact that this live changing event “seared” in him never actually took place. If he lied about this important event, then what else has he lied about regarding his Vietnam service? If we are suppose to understand Kerry’s plans for presidency through understanding his Vietnam record, then we must understand that he will be a fraud, will pander to special interest groups, and will be a perpetual insult to Veterans and the active military. To quote a Vietnam veteran who works for my client, “he’s an @$$.”How is using this different from the Dems embracing Michael Moore? Kerry has now admitted his "mistake." It's open game for everyone, not just the Swift Boat Veterans. We can utilize these facts without aligning the Republican Party with the Veterans, whether they're right about everything or not.

I've added some new links over the past couple of weeks and decided it might be a good idea to highlight them...

Protest Warrior- They received a lot of publicity from Fox News coverage and other media outlets. If there's an anti-war protest, these guys are usually there infiltrating it with their create signs and slogans- usually mocking the anti-war slogans. It's at least fun to browse their signs, but also read up on some of their stories and join.

A Nice Jewish Boy's Weblog- Simply wonderful. While it's nice to have pictures with Dennis Prager and Bill O'Reilly at the top of his page, my favorite is him in USA flag boxers with the Israeli flag. Beautiful. And he's got some good content as well.

The Dawn Treader- This blog jumped out to me due to the C.S. Lewis-related name. But even better, this guy supports Stand to Reason, which means he helps pay my paycheck. So he's worth linking to on those grounds along. However, he also has terrific content that complements many of the things I discuss here.

Freebie:
http://www.kerryoniraq.com/- The proper response to poor documentaries. This is a compilation of all of Kerry's flip-flops on Iraq. There is no question that he has taken just about every position available. This documentary is a must see.

Over the past few days I've heard this phrase, or something similar repeatedly. On Monday, Dennis Prager highlighted American Christianity's benefits to the world. One lady called in and accused Prager of not knowing his American history, because it was the Protestants who came and killed the American Indians and she claimed that if given the opportunity, Protestant Christians would kill off Roman Catholics. Prager wasted no time in identifying her as a bigot and incredibly misinformed. Yesterday, a man called into Michael Medved and insisted that Christians want to kill homosexuals. What's interesting is that in both of these cases, Jews were defending Christianity- Jews who are actually working for a Christian broadcast company. In Europe the Christians had a bad history of persecuting the Jews, but for some reason Prager and Medved found cause to defend American Christianity.
My friend Amy forwarded me a list of "beliefs" of those who vote Republican (this is one of those liberal chain-mails). First on the list is "Jesus loves you and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton." So it appears that the argument is- If Christians are against something, they hate it. And if they hate it, they will kill by whatever means possible. So if a Christian disagrees with you, they will try to kill you. What's scarier, is that some 8 out of 10 people consider themselves Christians (according to Gallup), so we're surrounded by them. Obviously, the Christian majority is going to kill us. As ridiculous as this sounds, it's what people are saying and thinking.
In a post "The Face of Christianism", on blogger lays out the case that nationalistic Christianity is trying to take over our nations symbols and destroy the separation of church and state. In this article: "Christian fanaticism poses greatest threat to America", the Christian right is considered more of a threat than Osama bin Laden and other terrorists.
Here we have a country, founded mostly by Protestants, who formed a government with a Biblical worldview, that is rapidly becoming post-Christian. (Mike Rose, please post the info you found on post-conservativism.) When I teach on Postmodernism I'm usually asked what the next cultural trend is. It is Post-Christianism. I have been defining this trend as an ignorance of basic Christian truths, values, and ideas. While this is partially correct, I'd like to update this. Post-Christianism isn't so much ignorance as it is distortion and intolerance of Christianity.
This distortion and intolerance is just characteristic of secular people, but also of many who consider themselves "Christians." In the last article I cited, they quote a Gallup poll that suggests 24% of Americans consider themselves part of the Christian right. Basically, only 1 out of 4 people in America who call themselves Christians are conservatives. The other 3 out of 4 would then be moderate to liberal, yet still call themselves Christian. Much like Clinton and Kerry have called themselves Christians. So Post-Christianity has already been embraced by the explicit secular society, as well as the "religious liberals," but also by a third and ever more dangerous group.
This group is the growing plethora of heretical church movements. I'm not saying that everyone involved in these movements are heretics, God can judge the individuals. It is the nature of the doctrines that are profoundly unbiblical. One such movement is C. Peter Wagner's "New Apostolic Reformation." He sees us entering a second age of apostolic teaching and prophecy. Another is the "Word of Faith" movement. These are mostly the people on TBN who tell us that Jesus was rich and practice fake healings (which Wagner does as well). These are just a few examples of heresies that our spreading within our churches and ushering us in the Post-Christian culture.
The words of Christian hate and killing really bugged me. I couldn't think of any Christians who say they want to kill people, or that they hate homosexuals. But then it dawned on me. Benny Hinn, one of the leaders of the Word of the Faith movement. Some years ago he made a prophecy that by 1998 God would strike all homosexuals down with fire. It's those people on TV that must be scaring the secularists. That's the only rational explanation I can come up with. Of course, the conclusion that these are irrational fears is worthy of consideration as well.
I don't see any hope. Sorry. We are inevitably moving into the Post-Christian age. The benefit to us now is that we can prepare. I have two specific things in mind right now.
1) We need to live lives that accurately reflect the moral teaching of the Bible. If non-Christians are going to respect our beliefs and us as people we need to live lives worthy of that respect. Character is essential for not only a positive image, but also positive influence. If we fail in character we will become "religious liberals" and our religion will be only a hobby.
2) We need to have knowledge, and this knowledge must be in 2 areas. The essentials of Christianity and how it applies to the culture. If we fail in knowledge we will be enticed by the heresies of the day, or we will be unable to convince anyone that Christianity is worthwhile.
Armed with Character and Knowledge, Wisdom will be born in us. And this wisdom will enable us to interact with the culture in a manner that both changes hearts and minds and glorifies God as well.
What I've just offered you is the cornerstone to Ambassadors for Christ, the apologetics ministry at my church. It is also the cornerstone of the class I teach, Reforming the Christian Ambassador. I feel cheesy plugging it, but if these issues concern you at all, as they should, then you may want to attend. It's Thursday nights in Paramount, CA, starting September 16th. The syllabus is available here. If you can't attend you may want to purchase the workbook.
The irrational bigotry against Christianity isn't something we're responsible for. But we must be weary of those "within" Christianity that are defaming it as well.

That's right, this my one hundreds blog post. Doesn't time fly? In the past few months I've helped spread the light of truth to over a thousand little people. Res Cogitans has been a city on a hill. A light in a dark place. The voice of reason in an age of... Okay, I'll stop. I wouldn't believe any of that in a second. But for posterity's sake, here's some stats:

Total viewers: 1,200 +
Most viewers in one day: 32 (July 14, 2004)
Most commented post: "Robbing Jesus" (July 20, 2004) on PCUSA's divestment of Israel

Since April, Res Cogitans has been mentioned or discussed at (that I'm aware of):
Hugh Hewitt (Hugh got me a whopping 18 visitors! :)
Christian Conservative (At least twice I think)
Writing to Understand (Not sure when I was mentioned, but I got a good number of hits from Kris)

Hat tips to all who come, comment, rant, and ask about dating me (I can dream right?). I welcome your comments and suggests. I try to cover a variety of topics as various things are on my mind. Let me know what you think.

No, not the animal. Monk is my favorite current TV show (all-time favorite is the A-Team, of course). It airs weekly on the USA Network, with its seasons during the summer. So, the third season will be wrapping up in a couple of weeks. I used to think I was alone in my infatuation for this hilarious show, but Chuck Colson recently wrote his daily commentary on it. He may be stretching a bit to draw great moral/theological content out of it, however, he's right about it being a terrific show. I'm not sure what he means by it not being for children either. There's only one episode I haven't seen and I can't recall anything not suitable for children. Here's his commentary:

Virtue Triumphant: Justice and Order in Monk

Check your local listings to watch: Monk
(Breaking News! USA will be doing a "Chunk of Monk" Marathon on August 15th! 10 Episodes!) Woohoo!

PONTIAC, Mich. — A county executive refused an order from the governor to fly flags at half-staff in honor of fallen troops, saying the order politicized the war in Iraq.
Instead of lowering flags, government should be building support for the troops who are fighting the war, said Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson, a Republican.
"His feeling is that lowering the flags to half-staff really politicized the war and promotes opposition to the war," Patterson spokesman Robert Dustman said.
The executive order made in December by Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm states that flags should be flown at half-staff from the day of the death or notification of death of an active-duty Michigan soldier until the day of interment. (Source)

Does lowering the flag to half-staff politicize the war or promote anti-war sentiment? When I see a lowered flag I don't think, "Gee, whoever died was fighting for an unjust cause." I tend to think of honor and pride for the fallen. When President Reagan died a 30 day half-staff was ordered, does that mean that we politicized Reagan and promoted anti-Reaganism or anti-Conservatism? I feel almost out of line in this since it was a Democratic govenor who ordered it and a Republican who's going against it- but this time I think I'm going to have to side with the Dem. (There must have been something in the taco meat for dinner.)

No, I'm not turning Democrat but I do believe in honoring and paying respect for our men and women who fall in the line of duty.

Awhile back I commented on the myth in the media that everything, no matter what its nature or true impact, is anti-Bush. If Bush does something positive (like announce where terrorists are targeting), then he is criticized. If Bush does nothing (and the terrorists act on information we already had), then he criticized further (legitimately in this case). While this is a key feature of Liberal Mythology, that's not all of it. Another key aspect is a confusion of good and evil. One way this plays out is anti-Christian. Another is pro-terrorist ideology. Here's an email I received this morning from my good friend Mark (I got his permission to post):

"I'm completely frustrated by how biased and liberal the LA Times is becoming. It's a shame that it's the only newspaper in my area of any value that is readily available.
In today's main section, there is a THREE PAGE article on American Muslims living in Las Vegas. The article basically tries to argue how welcoming and wonderful Las Vegas has been in welcoming Muslims and other religious minded people. And it also romanticizes these two Muslim men are for earnestly searching for their "Spiritual Thirsts".
I've been reading the LA Times for a LONG time, and NEVER have I seen a Three Page article about any Christians in a favorable light. A month back or so, there was a very large article about Colorado and how many large "Christian" political organizations have converged to take over much of Colorado (Focus On The Family, and another large Church), and painted as a dangerous trend that Christians are making.
I'm almost at the point where I'm thinking of NOT reading the LA Times any longer."

Notice who the enemy is. Not Muslims, but Christian organizations who seek political change. Frankly, I' m more concerned about liberal organizations who seek political change. Yes, I realize that not all Muslims want to kill us. Unfortunately, anyone who takes the Quran seriously does. But instead of being troubled by this and focusing on the dangerous teaching of Islamic thought and its growth in the United States, the LA Times has devoted a series of articles this week to "Understanding Muslims." As far as I'm concerned, there's only one thing that I need to understand about Muslims- They want me dead.
Some people are still shocked to hear that the media is liberal, leftist, and mostly Democratic. I'm not sure why, since it pervades almost every comment (Peter Jennings called Edwards the Vice President during the DNC- not just an honest mistake). But if you really need more evidence here's what a journalist from the NY Times recently said: Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of course it is. The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) " You can find a good discussion about this article at the Christian Conservative.
Yes, they're bias, so what? Where else do we get news? The Fox News Channel if you have cable. They're website is good as well, but the shows are better. You can also check out Media Research Center (www.mrc.org) which is a watchdog for liberal bias in the media. For my friend Mark who likes to read the paper every morning- bummer. My understanding is the more local the paper the more conservative it is (for our case that would be Press Telegram or the O.C. Register), but they likely still lean left. Unfortunately I don't know of any center-right media in print. Any suggestions?

The slogan on our currency is "In God We Trust." Soon there will be a movie coming out about those funny looking pyramids on the bills and how it turns out to be a treasure map. Some company is spending millions of dollars to explore the (incorrect) meanings of these symbols. (And the movie doesn't even look any good.) What about "In God We Trust"? Why not explore the depth and meaning of that?
The truth is, we often don't trust God. It's easy to say we do, but in reality we don't. Let me speak for myself at least. It really hit me a few days ago that I had gotten to a point that I wasn't trusting God with everything in my life. It seems that if things are generally running smoothly I can trust God with my life, but when problem after problem piles up I tend to rely on myself more and more. Of course, the more I rely on myself the worse things will get. Can I trust God with my car problems, a lawsuit, school problems, future plans, debt, ministry, and all those other little things? In reality they're all little things.
The question for me is can I trust God's Word? Can I trust that He's forgiven me when He said He has? Or will I let memories of failures and friends departed haunt my soul into doubt and frustration? The only remedy is saving grace. Given in mercy and poured out abundantly. Trouble and discontent arrive when we are too focused on ourselves. Peace, trust, and understanding grow in the sea of God's promises. The more we live God-centered lives the more we will bask in His oceanic grace- truly joyful and fully trusting.

That's right, he doesn't let God define it, Kerry defines it. On CBS today Kerry said, "I'm Christian, I'm Catholic, it's important to me," Kerry said. "It has served me through my whole life. But as I said in my [convention] speech, I'm not going to say God is on my side and I'm not going to go out and divide people. I want to pray that we are on God's side."
You think God likes the idea that Christianity has "severed" Kerry his whole life? For Kerry, religion is a hobby. Religion shouldn't divide people because it's not all that important. It's more like something you do in your spare time, it's more like ice cream and we all enjoy different flavors. I highly doubt that John Kerry actually truly believes in historic Christianity. Truth divides. Compromise and complacency unites.

Kerry Talks Up Hunting Habit, Faith in God

Yes, on occasion, the Roman Catholic church does something right and commendable. Here's the juicy excerpts from the news story:
The drive for equality makes "homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality," the Vatican said...
The document, addressed to bishops worldwide, contended that new recent approaches to women's issues were marked by a tendency "to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men."
Such an attitude, the document said, "has its most immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family."
The document also said that feminism wrongly tends to deny the differences between men and women "in order to avoid the dominance of one sex or the other."
The consequences of obscuring the differences between men and women, it said, included calling "into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father," giving homosexual and heterosexual couples an equivalent status.
The document also took issue with a "certain type of feminist rhetoric" that makes "demands `for ourselves."'...
The document also expressed the Vatican's concern that blurring of differences between sexes could pose a challenge to church teaching, including the belief, in a reference to Christ, that "the Son of God assumed human nature in its male form."
"From the first moment of their creation, man and woman are different, and will remain so for eternity," the document said.

The Vatican is right. The problem of homosexuality is rooted in a misunderstanding of what it means to be male and what it means to be female. These are usually understood through their roles in the family and economy. However, if we say there are no roles particular to gender then when it comes to other issues there will be no difference between male and female.

Source (Fox News)

Few people can pull off serious topics with a twist of humor. My buddy Mark Ritter (and his friend Dan, though I haven't met Dan) runs a site called SwordandSpirit.com. They just started blogging on politics and religion and it looks promising. I recommended reading their new blog as well as their site, and sign up for their newsletter.

Blog: http://swordandspirit.blogspot.com/

Webpage: http://www.swordandspirit.com/home.php

For those interested in background- Mark is a famous astronomer who teaches at very prestigious places. For instance, he was recently asked to be on a panel at a large conference at Biola on Intelligent Deign. He stunned the audience with only his nods of agreement.

A must see if you liked the first one. I'm not much an action film fan myself, but these are slick films. This takes it to the next level. Great car chase. It draws you into the story at first, but then the rest of the story I felt sort of disconnected. I wasn't overly excited about the bad guys being taken care as I should have been. Maybe lacking in character development? Or possibly how they relate to the viewer? At least the plost's good as well as the action sequences. Damon does well with the acting, most of the others could have done better.

Grade: B+ (I'd probably give the first one a B, though it's been awhile since I've seen it.)