I had an earlier post with a link to Christianity Today's list of the 50 books that most shaped evangelical thought in the 20th century. Needless to say, it has started a discussion.
Erik Thoennes, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies and Theology at Biola University now weighs in on the top ten books he thinks influenced evangelicals, as well as (and perhaps more importantly), the top ten books that should have influenced evangelicals.
Then there is this list (in the "should have influenced" category) from C. J. Mahaney at Sovereign Grace ministries.
And this from Jim Hamilton, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies, at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Houston Campus), and this from Sam Storms of Enjoying God Ministries, and this from Philp Ryken, Senior Minister of the historic Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia...
...aw heck, just go to "Between Two Worlds," the excellent blog of Justin Taylor in Wheaton, Illinois, to see the whole discussion now going on about books and evangelicaldom.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
The Republicans Foley Dilemma
In a letter to the editor of the Lexington Herald-Leader, Dennis Stutsman of Lexington repeats the mantra of the liberals on the Foley episode: "Maybe if these conservatives would put less energy into repression and division, pedophiles like Foley could be caught much earlier."
It apparently still has not occurred to them that the very fear of accusing a gay colleague of sexually predatory behavior may have been just what prevented Congressional leaders from dealing with it earlier.
The Democrats must know they have Republicans in a dilemma: either violate the anathema issued by the priests of political correctness (Never speak ill of gays) and risk being accused of intolerance, or follow it and be accused of a cover up.
Unfortunately, rather than try to find a creative way out of it, the Republicans have proved themselves weak-kneed enough to fully impale themselves on one horn of the dilemma.
It apparently still has not occurred to them that the very fear of accusing a gay colleague of sexually predatory behavior may have been just what prevented Congressional leaders from dealing with it earlier.
The Democrats must know they have Republicans in a dilemma: either violate the anathema issued by the priests of political correctness (Never speak ill of gays) and risk being accused of intolerance, or follow it and be accused of a cover up.
Unfortunately, rather than try to find a creative way out of it, the Republicans have proved themselves weak-kneed enough to fully impale themselves on one horn of the dilemma.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
If you're going to wave the flag, make sure it's the right one
In their zeal to show their patriotism in the form of support for American veterans, the Democratic Party posted a picture of a soldier on their official website. Unfortunately, as it turned out, the picture was of a Canadian soldier.
Oops.
According to Michelle Malkin, when the error was discovered, the picture was quickly taken off the site and replaced by the flag. Fortunately, there was enough familiarity with things American at Party headquarters that the image posted was that of the American flag, not the Canadian flag--or (perhaps more popular at their offices) the United Nations flag.
Oops.
According to Michelle Malkin, when the error was discovered, the picture was quickly taken off the site and replaced by the flag. Fortunately, there was enough familiarity with things American at Party headquarters that the image posted was that of the American flag, not the Canadian flag--or (perhaps more popular at their offices) the United Nations flag.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Latin in the News: "Habeas Fascismus"
I'm starting a new little feature just for fun. Being a Latin teacher (among other things), it always interests me to see Latin phrases used in the media. This one, habeas fascismus was used in this article as a play on habeas corpus. Habeas corpus means "you may have the body." The article argues that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 suspends habeas corpus and weakens individual rights in the United States. Habeas fascismus means "you may have fascism."
Log Cabin Conservatives: an Oxymoron
Meanwhile, over at the "Kentucky Conservative Blogs Networks: KY Conservative Views on News and Life," there seems to be some confusion over the definition of "conservatism". There is this jewel of an observation made by "Dawn" from "ConservaChick" in response to Democratic criticisms of Republicans for not being "diverse" enough:
Apparently Dawn is under the impression that marriage as a unique societal institution recognized (and often encouraged) by government originated with the Religous Right. This is a rather curious viewpoint given the fact that marriage is as old as civilization, and the Religious Right has only been around, oh, about 40 years.
If conservatives aren't interested in conserving and promoting the institutions that are necessary for the healthy, stable functioning of society, then they're not really conservatives.
When Republicans start buying in to Democrats rhetoric on "diversity" instead of resisting it, it's time to ask whether the Republican tent has become so big that there is really no difference between being inside it and being outide it.
The best way to defeat somebody is not to become just like them.
Um, hellooooo, Demmmmmms? Ever hear of a little organization called the Log Cabin Republicans?! (If not, fergawdsakes click on the link.) In all seriousness, Conservatism is not the sole property of the Religious Right; as a matter of fact, many of the ideas that the Religious Right tries to push through as legislation on the Hill are not Conservative ideas. Many true Conservatives fully embrace all people, regardless of their sexuality, as being an important part of the larger community of Conservatism. It is small-minded, bigotted, and ridiculous to believe otherwise about a political ideology that promotes personal responsibility and freedom.
Not all Conservatives are Evangelicals, nor are they for government endorsement of marriage. It is this Conservative's opinion that all unions should be considered "civil unions" if performed by a government authority. Marriage is a religious concept that can only be recognized as such by a church, in my opinion. Our federal government has no business defining marriage -- Civil unions, sure; marriage, no.
Apparently Dawn is under the impression that marriage as a unique societal institution recognized (and often encouraged) by government originated with the Religous Right. This is a rather curious viewpoint given the fact that marriage is as old as civilization, and the Religious Right has only been around, oh, about 40 years.
If conservatives aren't interested in conserving and promoting the institutions that are necessary for the healthy, stable functioning of society, then they're not really conservatives.
When Republicans start buying in to Democrats rhetoric on "diversity" instead of resisting it, it's time to ask whether the Republican tent has become so big that there is really no difference between being inside it and being outide it.
The best way to defeat somebody is not to become just like them.
Friday, October 06, 2006
The "Gay Pass": Were Foley's actions ignored because he was gay?
Was Mark Foley's harassment of male congressional pages allowed to continue because he was known to be a homosexual? So far, no one in the media has asked this question. They ought to.
The scandal, which involved sexual harassment through e-mail and instant messaging of young male House pages, had allegedly been reported to House leadership, who are now being accused of allowing it to continue. If House leadership did indeed know the true nature of Foley's behavior, then why would they not have done something about it?
In order to answer this question, it is necessary to ask another one: What would have happened if a man who was widely known to be gay was accused (in the absence of a media feeding frenzy) of chasing after young boys? What happens in general to anyone who says anything about any connection at all between homosexuality and sex with children--or, for that matter with any kind of sexual predation?
One of the things we know without any question is that anyone who is politically reckless enough to suggest that there is any kind of connection between homosexuality and sexually predatory behavior is immediately and unceremoniously read out of polite society. A brief survey of several past sex scandals involving children is all that is required to establish the fact.
The controversy over Boy Scout policies on scoutmasters is one recent example of the anger and outrage that can be generated by the suggestion that homosexuals might be interested in boys. Policies barring homosexuals from being scoutmasters were put in place because of actual incidents in which boys were molested by older males. But opponents of these policies have responded with spluttering indignation at the suggestion that gay men can in any way be blamed for this.
Being gay and being a male pedophile who abuses boys, the public is assured, are two entirely different and unrelated things. In fact, the Scout policy is considered so out of bounds that Scout troops all over the country face threats of defunding by corporations and municipalities because of it.
The other example, is, of course, the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests. Although the secular-minded media showed little restraint in reporting the issue, and seemed content enough to see the Church's reputation marred by the scandal, how did it handle the facts of the case? Most significantly what did it do with the fact that the vast majority of the abuse was of boys rather than girls?
The answer is, it did its best to underplay it. And when it was suggested that the problem could stem from the overabundance of gay priests coming from Catholic seminaries, the response consisted mostly of shock and indignation.
Despite their protestations, gays haven't helped themselves on this issue. Homosexual rights groups have a history of supporting laws to reduce the age of consent for sexual activity. They also have a long history of relationships with groups openly supportive of pedophilia. In fact, it took a lot longer for gay rights groups to expel open advocates of pedophilia from their midst than it did for the Republican Congressional leadership to come to terms with Mark Foley.
The bottom line is this: male on male pedophilia--or any other predatory sexual behavior, because it threatens the image gays have carefully cultivated of themselves in recent years, is something you simply try to talk about as little as possible.
What does all this have to do with Foley?
When Foley's attorney spoke to reporters the day after the story broke, there were three things he said Foley wanted the public to know. The first was that he was abused by a clergyman in his youth. The second was that he was an alcoholic. The third was that he was a "gay man."
Pop quiz: What does that last of these have to do with the first two? Answer: it is an excuse that Foley perceived would somehow help mitigate the culpability of his actions. It was an implicit way of saying, "I'm gay, and therefore I can't be a sexual predator, since, as we all know, homosexuality and sexual predation have nothing to do with each other."
Politicians caught in sexual escapades know instinctively that they can latch on to the polished public perception that gays are no different from heterosexuals when it comes to pedophilia and promiscuity. When Gov. James McGreevey of New Jersey resigned in the wake of revelations that he had had an affair with a former male aide, he quickly announced he was a "gay American." Why? Because he thought he could find protection in the prestige of the gay persona in the media.
Being perceived as "gay" is the last refuge of a sexual predator.
Of course, when politicians do this, they tarnish the reputation they bank on, which is why gay advocacy groups cringe every time a politician tries to cash in on their slick public persona. Just as gays tried to shun James McGreevey, they are now shunning Foley, and not so quietly grumbling that their image will be tarnished.
So, if you're in leadership in the U.S. Congress and you are faced with the decision of whether to accuse a colleague who is known to be gay of being a sexual predator, are you going to do it? The answer is that you would probably have to think about it a little longer than you otherwise would.
Let's call it "the gay pass": the idea that, if you're gay, you get extra political capital that you can spend when it is discovered that you are a sexual predator. Rep. Gerry Studds redeemed his pass in 1973 when he had an affair with a 17-year old male page. So did Rep. Barney Frank when it was discovered in 1990 that a male prostitution ring was being run out of his Washington townhouse. Both Studds and Frank were quickly forgiven and subsequently reelected.
One of the questions being asked in the wake of the Foley episode is whether Republicans should be held to a higher standard when it comes to sex scandals because of their family values rhetoric. They probably should. But it is also legitimate to ask whether gays are held to a lower standard in such circumstances, and whether the tendency to do just that was what reduced the enthusiasm around the Capitol to do something about Foley.
© 2006 by Martin Cothran. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be published without the express written consent of the author. These comments are the personal opinions of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official opinion of any other persons or organizations.
The scandal, which involved sexual harassment through e-mail and instant messaging of young male House pages, had allegedly been reported to House leadership, who are now being accused of allowing it to continue. If House leadership did indeed know the true nature of Foley's behavior, then why would they not have done something about it?
In order to answer this question, it is necessary to ask another one: What would have happened if a man who was widely known to be gay was accused (in the absence of a media feeding frenzy) of chasing after young boys? What happens in general to anyone who says anything about any connection at all between homosexuality and sex with children--or, for that matter with any kind of sexual predation?
One of the things we know without any question is that anyone who is politically reckless enough to suggest that there is any kind of connection between homosexuality and sexually predatory behavior is immediately and unceremoniously read out of polite society. A brief survey of several past sex scandals involving children is all that is required to establish the fact.
The controversy over Boy Scout policies on scoutmasters is one recent example of the anger and outrage that can be generated by the suggestion that homosexuals might be interested in boys. Policies barring homosexuals from being scoutmasters were put in place because of actual incidents in which boys were molested by older males. But opponents of these policies have responded with spluttering indignation at the suggestion that gay men can in any way be blamed for this.
Being gay and being a male pedophile who abuses boys, the public is assured, are two entirely different and unrelated things. In fact, the Scout policy is considered so out of bounds that Scout troops all over the country face threats of defunding by corporations and municipalities because of it.
The other example, is, of course, the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests. Although the secular-minded media showed little restraint in reporting the issue, and seemed content enough to see the Church's reputation marred by the scandal, how did it handle the facts of the case? Most significantly what did it do with the fact that the vast majority of the abuse was of boys rather than girls?
The answer is, it did its best to underplay it. And when it was suggested that the problem could stem from the overabundance of gay priests coming from Catholic seminaries, the response consisted mostly of shock and indignation.
Despite their protestations, gays haven't helped themselves on this issue. Homosexual rights groups have a history of supporting laws to reduce the age of consent for sexual activity. They also have a long history of relationships with groups openly supportive of pedophilia. In fact, it took a lot longer for gay rights groups to expel open advocates of pedophilia from their midst than it did for the Republican Congressional leadership to come to terms with Mark Foley.
The bottom line is this: male on male pedophilia--or any other predatory sexual behavior, because it threatens the image gays have carefully cultivated of themselves in recent years, is something you simply try to talk about as little as possible.
What does all this have to do with Foley?
When Foley's attorney spoke to reporters the day after the story broke, there were three things he said Foley wanted the public to know. The first was that he was abused by a clergyman in his youth. The second was that he was an alcoholic. The third was that he was a "gay man."
Pop quiz: What does that last of these have to do with the first two? Answer: it is an excuse that Foley perceived would somehow help mitigate the culpability of his actions. It was an implicit way of saying, "I'm gay, and therefore I can't be a sexual predator, since, as we all know, homosexuality and sexual predation have nothing to do with each other."
Politicians caught in sexual escapades know instinctively that they can latch on to the polished public perception that gays are no different from heterosexuals when it comes to pedophilia and promiscuity. When Gov. James McGreevey of New Jersey resigned in the wake of revelations that he had had an affair with a former male aide, he quickly announced he was a "gay American." Why? Because he thought he could find protection in the prestige of the gay persona in the media.
Being perceived as "gay" is the last refuge of a sexual predator.
Of course, when politicians do this, they tarnish the reputation they bank on, which is why gay advocacy groups cringe every time a politician tries to cash in on their slick public persona. Just as gays tried to shun James McGreevey, they are now shunning Foley, and not so quietly grumbling that their image will be tarnished.
So, if you're in leadership in the U.S. Congress and you are faced with the decision of whether to accuse a colleague who is known to be gay of being a sexual predator, are you going to do it? The answer is that you would probably have to think about it a little longer than you otherwise would.
Let's call it "the gay pass": the idea that, if you're gay, you get extra political capital that you can spend when it is discovered that you are a sexual predator. Rep. Gerry Studds redeemed his pass in 1973 when he had an affair with a 17-year old male page. So did Rep. Barney Frank when it was discovered in 1990 that a male prostitution ring was being run out of his Washington townhouse. Both Studds and Frank were quickly forgiven and subsequently reelected.
One of the questions being asked in the wake of the Foley episode is whether Republicans should be held to a higher standard when it comes to sex scandals because of their family values rhetoric. They probably should. But it is also legitimate to ask whether gays are held to a lower standard in such circumstances, and whether the tendency to do just that was what reduced the enthusiasm around the Capitol to do something about Foley.
© 2006 by Martin Cothran. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be published without the express written consent of the author. These comments are the personal opinions of the author and should not be interpreted as representing the official opinion of any other persons or organizations.
Making Fun of Foley
National Review magazine comments on the Foley episode: "Mark Foley has checked himself into rehab for alcoholism. We hope the scotch was older than the boys."
The 50 books that shaped evangelicals
Christianity Today Magazine has compiled their list of the 50 books that have shaped evangelicals. For better and worse, I think it is a fairly accurate list.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Just in case you thought pedophilia was a Republican thing
This just in: hypocrisy is not limited to Republicans. Check out this very informative article on David Horowitz's webpage on "The Left's Pedophile Problem."
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
How to Win Friends and Influence People (and have them say nice things about you later on)
It's so seldom that people actually say nice things about me, I couldn't resist reprinting Francis Beckwith's recent remarks in one of the comment sections of the Right Reason blog. Frank is one of the most logically forceful and articulate evangelical scholars writing today. He is the author numerous books and articles, and is one of the foremost experts on the issue of the constitutionality of Intelligent Design in schools:
BTW, Martin Cothran was instrumental in my embracing of political conservativism. While in graduate school in southern California in 1983-84 (while we were both studying for our MAs at the old Simon Greenleaf Univ, which has since merged with Trinity in Deerfield IL), Martin scolded me when I called myself a "moderate." Then he bought me a subscription to the American Spectator and encouraged me to read National Review, Bill Buckley's UP FROM LIBERALISM, and Newt Gingrich's WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY. I then went on to devour Gilder's WEALTH AND POVERTY, Hazlitt's ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON, and Schaeffer and Koop's WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE. From there I read Schlossberg's IDOLS FOR DESTRUCTION, Novak's SPIRIT OF DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM, and Robert Cord's SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
Also, Martin's a huge Chesterton guy, having done his MA thesis on Chesterton's work. This inspired me to read ORTHODOXY and a collection of Chesterton's writings that Martin had bought me as a gift.
I am semi-literate only because of Martin Cothran.
Thanks, Martin.
Take care,
Frank
What he doesn't mention (probably because he has forgotten) is that he was also prochoice at this time. I remember many evenings debating the issue with him at JoJo's Coffee Shop. It makes my heart glow to think that I may have had a hand in bringing the author of Politically Correct Death, the best demolition job of the prochoice position ever written, over from the Dark Side.
BTW, Martin Cothran was instrumental in my embracing of political conservativism. While in graduate school in southern California in 1983-84 (while we were both studying for our MAs at the old Simon Greenleaf Univ, which has since merged with Trinity in Deerfield IL), Martin scolded me when I called myself a "moderate." Then he bought me a subscription to the American Spectator and encouraged me to read National Review, Bill Buckley's UP FROM LIBERALISM, and Newt Gingrich's WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY. I then went on to devour Gilder's WEALTH AND POVERTY, Hazlitt's ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON, and Schaeffer and Koop's WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE. From there I read Schlossberg's IDOLS FOR DESTRUCTION, Novak's SPIRIT OF DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM, and Robert Cord's SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
Also, Martin's a huge Chesterton guy, having done his MA thesis on Chesterton's work. This inspired me to read ORTHODOXY and a collection of Chesterton's writings that Martin had bought me as a gift.
I am semi-literate only because of Martin Cothran.
Thanks, Martin.
Take care,
Frank
What he doesn't mention (probably because he has forgotten) is that he was also prochoice at this time. I remember many evenings debating the issue with him at JoJo's Coffee Shop. It makes my heart glow to think that I may have had a hand in bringing the author of Politically Correct Death, the best demolition job of the prochoice position ever written, over from the Dark Side.
Scientists who doubt Darwinism
I recently had a reporter express her considered opinion that there were "no scientists" who didn't accept Darwinism. I wish had had this list at my fingertips at the time. It is a statement signed by 600 scientists saying, "“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Domestic Partner Benefits on Catholic Radio
I was on WMJR 1380, Catholic Radio, this afternoon on the issue of Domestic Partner Benefits at UK. Interest in this issue appears to be increasing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)