Victor Davis Hanson makes an excellent point:
I never quite understood some of the conventional invective against the candidates. Huckabee apparently still takes speaking fees? But the man is neither on any payroll nor independently wealthy — so how is he supposed to support his family while campaigning? Lecturing for money via a speakers’ bureau seems no more or less unethical than elected officials who are not present in session even though they are still drawing a paycheck.
Thompson is slurred as “lazy”; but, in fact, anyone in his mid-sixties, who has survived non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and is campaigning daily under media scrutiny could hardly be lazy; courageous might be a better characterization.
The attraction of McCain is not just his past, but surely his present as well. Almost forgotten is the notion how anyone 71, wounded and disabled after being tortured for 51/2 years, and a survivor of malignant melanoma, is likewise 24/7 out on the stump.
The media recently seemed concerned about Giuliani’s “headache,” but he too is a cancer survivor, and in his sixties.
I am duly impressed that the latter three can stay out there day after day after what they’ve gone through — with obstacles that the other younger, healthier candidates of both parties don’t contend with.
All serious presidential candidates are keeping a schedule that would wear out most Americans, even those who haven’t had health problems. For that effort, if nothing, the can be admired.
Message for the celebration of the World Day of Peace 2008 – THE HUMAN FAMILY, A COMMUNITY OF PEACE
The natural family, as an intimate communion of life and love, based on marriage between a man and a woman(2), constitutes “the primary place of ‘humanization’ for the person and society”(3), and a “cradle of life and love”(4). The family is therefore rightly defined as the first natural society, “a divine institution that stands at the foundation of life of the human person as the prototype of every social order”
So, I won my fantasy football league this year for the second time in the five years I’ve been in it. I actually missed the draft this year because I noted the date change but not the time change, so my team was auto-drafted. I looked at many of the players I ended up with and said, “Who’s that?” But, I had the most points of any team during the regular season (despite finishing in seventh place) and could have had even more points except there were a few weeks I forgot to change my roster and started a few players on bye weeks. But, my team came up with three straight upsets and won the league in the playoffs.
Then in the Delaware Bloggers Pick ‘Em league started by Ryan of Jokers to the Right, I won that too. My success there really took off once I stopped actually thinking about who would win and just going with the favorites every week, with only the occasional upset selected.
I just hope this hasn’t used up all my luck.
Read the whole article.
The more I read about this guy, the more I like him.
Why God is Father and Not Mother (Part 1) | Mark Brumley | IgnatiusInsight.com
Whatever this is, it is not Christianity, which affirms that God has spoken to us in Jesus Christ. C.S. Lewis, in an essay on women’s ordination in Anglicanism, put the matter thus:
But Christians think that God himself has taught us how to speak of him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favor of Christian priestesses but against Christianity.
Cardinal Ratzinger made a similar point in The Ratzinger Report: “Christianity is not a philosophical speculation; it is not a construction of our mind. Christianity is not ‘our’ work; it is a Revelation; it is a message that has been consigned to us, and we have no right to reconstruct it as we like or choose. Consequently, we are not authorized to change the Our Father into an Our Mother: the symbolism employed by Jesus is irreversible; it is based on the same Man-God relationship he came to reveal to us.”
Now people are certainly free to reject Christianity. But they should be honest enough to admit that this is what they are doing, instead of surreptitiously replacing Christianity with the milk of the Goddess, in the name of putting new wine into old wineskins.
Those who insist on substituting their own language for the supposed “sexism” of the Gospel (and therefore of God, since Scripture was inspired by Him) are really just displaying their own arrogance and faith in themselves, rather than faith in God. After all, if the “sexism” of God needs to be corrected, what other teachings of His can be tossed?
Read the whole thing (both parts) to see why it makes no sense given the nature of masculinity and femininity (and from the nature of creation) to consider God as Mother.
Turtles all the way down
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”
This story is often used to mock religious believers who argue for the existence of God, but it also makes the same point about purely scientific beliefs.
Atheists use this to mock the religious belief in an eternal God who was never created. “How can something come from nothing?,” they ask. But the same problem lies with a purely material explanation for our existence.
Some scientists originally argued against the big Bang theory because the notion that there was a moment of creation implied that there was a Creator. (Even Einstein favored a “steady-state” universe that has always existed.) Now that the Big Bang (originally a pejorative name) looks more likely to be true, it’s sometimes used against the notion of a Creator. But the problem noted above with the existence of God also applies to a completely natural creation of the Universe. Where’d everything come from? How could something come from nothing?
It’s occasionally posited that perhaps our universe was created from the remnants of another universe, that is, our Big Bang was the followup to another, preceding universe’s “Big Crunch,” so to speak. Others have suggested that perhaps we’re merely one of any number of universes that exist all at once, and our Big Bang was the creation of a white hole related to a black hole in another universe. Both of these theories evade the question of the ultimate source of all creation. While each new universe coming as a result of a prior universe in some way may meet the inductive step of a traditional proof by induction, this fails to prove the base case required for a proper proof by induction.
The fact is that just as no one claims to know how God came into being, we also don’t know how the universe came into being. Before mocking religious believers for believing in God, who we don’t know how He came to be, they need to remember the exact same mockery can be directed at them for their belief in the natural creation of our universe.