Radio Blogger

Radio Blogger: “From the New York Post this morning, we read about this campaign stop from Chris Heinz, that stud muffin trying to court the youth vote:
THIS campaign is ending just in time before someone gets hurt. John Kerry’s stepson, Chris Heinz, 31, displayed his mother Teresa’s famous lack of rhetorical restraint at a recent campaign event with a group of Wharton students. Philadelphia magazine reports: ‘Heinz accused Kerry’s opponents - ‘our enemies’ - of making the race dirty. ‘We didn’t start out with negative ads calling George Bush a cokehead,’ he said, before adding, ‘I’ll do it now.’ Asked later about it, Heinz said, ‘I have no evidence. He never sold me anything.'’ Heinz also reminded writer Sasha Issenberg of Pat Buchanan by saying, ‘One of the things I’ve noticed is the Israel lobby - the treatment of Israel as the 51st state, sort of a swing state.’ Buchanan was blasted as an anti-Semite years ago when he cited Israel’s ‘amen corner’ in Congress. “

Will Kerry denounce this remark? If not, then what are Jewish voters thinking if they vote for Kerry?

The new liberal bigotry is to despise traditionally religious people and Jews. Go to local University, read the memo board, and you will see it.

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Who will win? Kerry by a hair

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / Who will win? Kerry by a hair: “Prediction: Kerry catches inside straight. Beats Bush by 6-10 electoral votes. Would make Kerry third senator ever elected president and first since John F. Kennedy.
Dan Payne is a Boston-based Democratic media consultant who has worked in John Kerry’s Senate campaigns in the past but is not affiliated with his presidential campaign. He does presidential campaign analysis for NPR, and his column appears regularly in the Globe.”

An advantage of being old: when your own side says that you need “an inside straight to win” you are going to lose.

Bush will win.

Here is a repeat of my APRIL predictions so you can make fun of me when I am wrong. . . I have noted any changes in italics under the original.

Bush versus Kerry (Stiff)

State/Prediction

ALABAMA/Bush
God, guns, and gays, Mr. Dean said. God will not vote. Gays are one to two percent. Guns. They will vote for Bush.

ALASKA/Bush
Last frontier will not vote for the boater from Back Bay.

ARIZONA/Bush
Older voters will not vote for a Fonda Democrat.

ARKANSAS/Bush
Baptists for Bush.

CALIFORNIA/Stiff
More people in the three main cities than in most of the state.

COLORADO/Bush
Home state of Focus on the Family.

CONNECTICUT/Stiff
Suburb of NYC.

DELAWARE/Stiff
North eastern liberal has some appeal here.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA/Stiff
Why it will never be a state.

FLORIDA/Bush
Jeb is a good brother. Panhandle votes this time.

GEORGIA/Bush
Come to Jesus, Mr. Bush.

HAWAII/Stiff
Sort of has a Republican party.

IDAHO/Bush
Sort of has a Democrat party.

ILLINOIS/Stiff
The dead will vote again. And again.

INDIANA/Bush
“Regular” people like Bush.

IOWA/Bush
Kerry carries the patrician Iowa vote.

KANSAS/Bush
Dole.

KENTUCKY/Bush
Try letting Theresa speak at the county fairs.

LOUISIANA/Bush
Imagine Kerry eating crawfish.

MAINE/Stiff
New England was once Christian.

MARYLAND/Stiff
Maryland was once Catholic.

MASSACHUSETTS/Stiff
Massachusetts was once American.

MICHIGAN/Bush
Union workers will not vote for leftist Kerry.

MINNESOTA/Bush
Trending Republican.

MISSISSIPPI/Bush
Kerry will carry this state after the Rapture when all his voters are Left Behind.

MISSOURI/Bush
Look on every corner. Assembly of God. Bapitist. Methodist. Kerry can only carry states with many Episcopalians.

MONTANA/Bush
Bush wins every state where males don’t get manicures.

NEBRASKA/Bush
Last national Democrat they liked was William Jennings Bryan. Bryan could win in modern America.

NEVADA/Bush
Vegas for Kerry! The rest of the state for Bush.

NEW HAMPSHIRE/Bush
Live free or die.

State has changed with more flat-landers moving. Now for Stiff.

NEW JERSEY/Bush
The gov is Kerry without the medals.

Too liberal, the state has not broken the right way. Now for Stiff

NEW MEXICO/Bush
Pro-life, pro-family says, “Hola.”

NEW YORK/Stiff
9/11 forgotten.

NORTH CAROLINA/Bush
Move on.Christian

NORTH DAKOTA/Bush
No french spoken here.

OHIO/Bush
Too many rural voters.

OKLAHOMA/Bush
They liked the Passion here.

OREGON/Stiff
Coast people kill state.

PENNSYLVANIA/Bush
Abortion.

I could have been right, but I think Specter and the lack of a party machine dooms Bush here. Stiff.

RHODE ISLAND/Stiff
semi-state votes for semi-candidate.

SOUTH CAROLINA/Bush
One nation under God.

SOUTH DAKOTA/Bush
Five dollars to my favorite charity for every day Kerry spends here.

TENNESSEE/Bush
Another good state for Theresa.

TEXAS/Bush
The buckle of the Bible Belt.

UTAH/Bush
Memo to Kerry: it is LDS not LSD.

VERMONT/Stiff
Massachusetts colony.

VIRGINIA/Bush
Pat Robertson.

WASHINGTON/Stiff
Close. Coast rules.

WEST VIRGINIA/Bush
God, guns, gays again, Mr. Dean.

WISCONSIN/Bush
Packer football fans note Kerry has a bad throwing motion.

WYOMING/Bush
There was a Democrat here once.

This Bush Problem Stems From Cells

This Bush Problem Stems From Cells: “He cried out against stem cells because he said they are sinful. You are taking a life to perhaps save a life, he says. He sees armies of women having babies and then chopping them up like chickens for the stem cells. He is opposed to embryonic stem cells, which come from a fetus that has been fertilized in vitro. His wife says the stem cells couldn’t save her father from Alzheimer’s, which means nobody should have them. They get their views from a Dust-Bowl Bible left by Elmer Gantry.”

Here is how they talk when you are not listening at the Kerry camp. An intellectual view supported by the likes of J.P. Moreland and Scott Rae, men of intellect and accomplishment, is from a “Dust-Bowl Bible.”

The greatest of the great books? Just a tool for slick preachers, outdated and useless. If you go to a church that values tradition (like I do), is this the sort of message you want to support?

You are stupid hicks and your leaders are crooks.

That is the view of evangelicals and their Bible by Kerry folk. Is this what you want to support? Don’t be misled by thinking “evangelical” does not include you if you are Orthodox or Catholic. In the minds of the Kerry camp, we are all evangelical because we support the faith once delivered to the apostles. Let your Baptist brother down now and they will come after the Serbians, Greeks, Russians, and Arab Christians next. If you are Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant the Kerry community is not going to support your values. Kerry could have denounced the bigots. He lost his chance.

No African-American should vote for a racist or a person who associates himself with racists. In the same way, no traditional Christian should vote for Kerry.

For Whom Would Jesus Vote? - Christianity Today Magazine

For Whom Would Jesus Vote? - Christianity Today Magazine: “Abortion is a monstrous tragedy for the nation, but our Christian commitment to a culture of life does not permit us the luxury of abandoning other important issues. While single-mindedness in following Christ is always wise, single-issue voting may not be.”

Christianity Today continues its slide into being “yesterdays” evangelical source for information. Dominated by Wheaton-think*, CT has lately been more worried about being taken seriously by the mainstream media than in defending the faith once delivered to the apostles.

The absurd ethical nature of this editorial deserves little comment. Abortion kills babies. Unless CT can point to something with equal, immediate moral damage, one should never vote for a candidate who supports abortion. Suppose Candidate A supports abortion. He is for killing babies. Candidate B supports cutting educational programs to children. (Let’s assume no “nuanced” view of education and that such an opinion is known to be bad. Of course, that itself is another problem for CT. We know abortion is bad. We don’t know that some other things are bad, we just believe them to be so.) Candidate A will kill the child before Candidate B’s program cuts will harm the child’s education. It is difficult to imagine any position or set of positions actually held by any American politician that justifies voting for a candidate who favors human experimentation and killing babies over a pro-life candidate.

Of course, as the abused Catholic quotation makes clear if Candidate B were in favor of some even more monstrous evil (abortion and infanticide), then it might be acceptable to vote for A as the lesser of two evils. However, the Roman Church plainly is not saying one can vote for an abortion-rights supporter if another candidate is not serious about global warming. CT thinks it can get away with abusing Roman positions, because it is still stuck in the days of old media. They will lie about what the Roman Church teaches and their readers will not notice.

There is also the more difficult situation when no viable candidate is pro-life. In that case, I usually suggest voting for the candidate who is most pro-life. (A is for all abortions. B is for most abortions. I can do some good by voting for B.)

How does such confused and morally bankrupt stuff get written? Only a tiny group of evangelicals think this way. Sadly, they are the evangelicals that the people at CT care about. These clever evangelicals, serious about their seriousness, if devoid of original thought, want to be taken seriously by their “smart set” friends. They feel the shame of the Cross every day as they have to put up with the academic disadvantage of just being, though barely, some sort of traditional Christian. (Why once someone sneered, sneered, at them during a department wine and cheese!) Therefore, they jettison every traditional view they can or nuance them so as to fit in better with the spirit of the age.

What is coming? Based on their subtle approach to any moral problem, CT will soon be running articles on homosexuality asking evangelicals to take a serious look at their assumptions.
“Does the Bible really condemn modern day homosex? Isn’t the Greek really referring to temple practices?” This sort of nonsense will soon become common “smart” evangelical talk, as it already is in some circles.

The truth is that if you have a conservative view of the culture, Wheaton is not as friendly to your values as it used to be. A large group of faculty, if not a majority, is going to despise your values. As one Christian faculty member from the Wheaton-type academic community said, “I am here to show Christians they can use the word bastard.” There you have it. Schools like Wheaton are rapidly becoming places that are less interested in defending your values and more interested in finding nuanced ways to get rid of your values.

You have other options. CT-Fuller-Wheaton style leaders (leaving aside powerless administrators and aging board members) are not Dobson-Colson-Schaeffer-Chrysostom friendly. Don’t bother with them.

If you doubt this, see if those opposed to priesting women/ordaining women get a fair shake in today’s CT. Once CT was a semi-serious theological journal, then it became a news magazine with feature articles. Now it is, well, not much of anything. Traditional evangelicals long ago started shifting to magazines like Touchstone and First Things for more serious analysis and cutting edge weeklies like World for news.

CT has the right to represent the twelve percent of so of liberal evangelicals in the nation. Fuller has a right to become their seminary. Wheaton has the right to become their college. But if you think, as I do, that Chrysostom is more vital to today’s Church than Campolo, then these places are no longer for you. If you believe R.A. Torrey is more interesting than Ron Sider, than these institutions are becoming less friendly. If you think traditional families are good and Dobson is mostly right, then these groups are becoming hostile.

Vote with your wallet, your kids, and where you hire your pastors. Annoy the CT snobs, who think you rednecks and fundamentalists anyway, by voting for Bush.

*Wheaton Think: “The main problem with the Church is the fact that the University of Chicago does not take us seriously. Serious people never give black and white answers to questions. They love nuance. Serious people are also Democrats, therefore, it must be possible for serious people to be Democrats.”

Marriage amendments all expected to pass

Marriage amendments all expected to pass: “State constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman are likely to pass in all 11 states where they are on the Nov. 2 ballot, making the amendment a factor in the presidential race in three battleground states: Michigan, Ohio and Oregon. “

Dear Libertine Republicans,

Any chance 11 amendments would pass in very different parts of the country on your issues without our help?

Yet we are about to do so without yours on one of our issues.

Our issue will run ahead of the President in most of these states.

You need us. Let’s be friends. Drop your odd sexual views and let’s work together to make government smaller. Let’s be libertarian without being libertine.

Your Traditional Republican Friend

Russia tied to Iraq’s missing arms - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - October 27, 2004

Russia tied to Iraq’s missing arms - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - October 27, 2004: ” Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. “

This is so big. This is it. If true, and it is a well sourced story, then Bush is vindicated. The Russians had the stuff and Bush allowed himself to be attacked. . . knowing that his foes were full of beans, but he had to be quiet for the sake of the nation.

Now we know.

Oh. My. Goodness.

P.S. My daughter Mary Kate is the world’s biggest Red Sox fan. To her, there is only one story tonight.

Initiatives

How I Will Vote on the Initiatives

I have been asked by several regular readers how I will vote on the Initiatives on the California ballot. I have noted my vote and limited myself to one sentence describing why I am voting that way.

I have drawn my information from the California Secretary of State’s web site.

Proposition 1A
SCA 4 (Resolution Chapter 133, Statutes of 2004). Torlakson. Protection of Local Government Revenues.

YES.
Anything that gives local government control of their money is a good thing.

Proposition 59
SCA 1 (Resolution Chapter 1, Statutes of 2004). Burton. Public Records, Open Meetings. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

YES.
Citizens should know what is happening in their government as often as possible.

Proposition 60
SCA 18 (Resolution Chapter 103, Statutes of 2004). Johnson. Election Rights of Political Parties. Legislative Constitutional Amendment

YES.
Republicans get to decide the Republican nominee.

Proposition 60A
SCA 18 (Resolution Chapter 103, Statutes of 2004). Johnson. Surplus Property. Legislative Constitutional Amendment

YES.
Basic rule: limiting how government can spend its money is a good idea.

Proposition 61
1003. (SA03RF0033, Amdt. #1-S). Children’s Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act. Initiative Statute.

NO. (Tough Call)
Government should not borrow money to pay for things that should be part of the core budget.

Proposition 62
1005. (SA03RF0031, Amdt. #1-S). Elections. Primaries. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

NO.
If you think the problem with the parties is that they are not “moderate,” vote for this proposition and give California the kind of clean politics found in Louisiana.

Proposition 63
1007. (SA03RF0036). Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million. Initiative Statute.

NO.
“Thou shalt not covet” is good economics.

Proposition 64
1016. (SA03RF0051). Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws. Initiative Statute.

YES.
A good way to end business killing law suits.

Proposition 66
1015. (SA03RF0047, Amdt. #1-S). Limitations on “Three Strikes” Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment. Initiative Statute.

NO.
Three strikes works.

Proposition 67
1010. (SA03RF0043). Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

NO.
Another good thing they should do without special money, but if they ask you about taxes, the best rule of thumb is to say “No.”

Proposition 68
1027. (SA03RF0059). Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendements. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendments and Statute.

NO.
Big gambling does not need our help.

Proposition 69
1029. (SA03RF0065). DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding. Initiative Statute.

YES.
Why not give a good tool to law enforcement?

Proposition 70
1046. (SA04RF0005, Amdt. #1-NS). Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

NO.
Big Indian gaming does not need our help.

Proposition 71
1021. (SA03RF0055, Amdt. #1-NS). Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

NO.
Vote against using your money for human experimentation.

Proposition 72
1008. (SA03RF0049). Health Care Coverage Requirements. Referendum.

NO.
Good companies that can will, but mandating it will drive many small, good companies out of business.

The Situation

Who is winning the presidential race?

Here is an easy way to answer this question. Whose position would you want if you were one of the candidates? Here are three reasons I think Bush is winning and that the race will not be as close as we might think.

1. Bush is leading or tied in all the major polls. The undecided are not breaking toward Kerry. There are very few left. Kerry core voters (a smaller group) are motivated by hatred of Bush. Bush voters love Bush. I lived through Dole/Clinton. Believe me love moves men to action better than hate.
2. If Bush gets Ohio and Florida, it is highly unlikely he will lose. Florida looks best at the moment and that is the weakest state for Bush. Ohio is fundamentally a Republican state. If I were John Kerry and I was counting on the voters of Ohio to save me, I would feel very, very worried. Amazingly Bush does not need Ohio to win. He could put together a victory without it.
3. Gay marriage is on the ballot in many swing states. Dean was right (in a round-about way): “God, Guns, and Gays” are going to kill Kerry. Bush will run behind pro-marriage votes in most states.

We need Bush. Remind yourself that the terrorists in Iraq are trying to kill people to defeat Bush. Never vote for anyone who spends more time angry at Bush than at the terrorists.

Remind yourself of our core values and the three best reasons to vote for Bush:

1. Bush is fighting to expand liberty in the world. If it works, then he will be a Rushmore president and it will lead to a more lasting peace in the world. Such promise is worth the difficulty and the risk.
2. Bush believes in a culture of life and in marriage. John Kerry will try to force Christians to pay for abortions and will undermine marriage.
3. Bush has a sane view of economics. The prosperity of my neighbor does not mean my neighbor took something from me. One cannot steal the wealth of others to help anyone. Bush knows “thou shalt not covet” is more than good advice. When Kerry claims he will tax the rich, he is revealing an entire life spent coveting the wealth of others. He will further cut taxes while providing help for those who cannot help themselves.

Welcome!

What has happened to American atheism?

If internet content is any clue, then this is a movement in serious decline. With an aging set of arguments, it seems to survive mostly on a sense of superiority it gained in the fifties. This is sad, since atheism has had a long and interesting philosophical tradition. On the other hand, on-line content is not well suited (at present) for long arguments. For example, this blog is certainly not a set of arguments, but a running commentary. So perhaps American atheism is more robust in the academy than it seems on-line.

In philosophy, atheism long ago lost the “cutting edge” with journals like Philosophia Christi and groups such as the Society of Christian Philosophers enjoying sustained growth. Lately, I have noticed that younger defenders of atheism often are less well educated and have less background than their predecessors. A movement is in peril that moves from Flew to Dan Barker. Most top philosophy programs now have a solid number of evangelical Christians in them. Catholic philosophy continues as a strong force in the field.

Of course, one can rationally be an atheist or an agnostic. There are many fine atheist thinkers, some of whom are valued mentors of my own. For me, it is not a position that seems as plausible as theism after careful examination. Plato led me out of any desire to be an atheist along with a good dose of logic. More than any other work, his Republic and Timaeus made me look for a that great “known unknown.”

Let me briefly give three reasons I am not an atheist:

First, atheism has no way to sustain meaningful goodness and beauty. It might be the case that the Good and the Beautiful are “unreal” or human creations. However, if there is a rational way to sustain their existence, then I prefer that view. It seems better to me to be able to say that the KKK is evil and not just that I dislike their views as a personal preference.

It seems preferable to know that a rose is beautiful, than to think there is no real beauty at all. Of course, this is a complicated discussion, but if Christian theism must struggle to make sense of evil (and it must), then I prefer that to a struggle to sustain any concept of “good.”

Second, some arguments for God’s existence seem sound and compelling to me. Versions of the ontological argument (such as those of Plantinga) are at the very least intellectually interesting. The Kalaam Argument as formulated by my friend William Lane Craig is also worth looking at. Evidence for at least some supernatural experiences, like Christ coming back from the dead, also seem convincing. The existence of the human mind also seems suggestive on a non-naturalistic reality. So certain rational considerations suggest God’s possible (or probable) existence to me.

Finally, I have had a personal experience with God. It might be the case that this is “just in my head,” but I see no rational gain in believing so. I cannot doubt this experience happened and so the simple explanation (that the experience is what it seems to be) is best. This religious experience lines up with those of other people at other places at other times. I have put God to the test and He is there. Atheism can explain this away, but since it has cost me nothing in terms of being able to live a rational and skeptical life, theism seems preferable.

There was a time in my life when I greatly wanted God to be “unreal.” Personally, having read both sides of the literature at the highest level, I could not remain outside the traditional Christian fold.

I teach and live by the code that any question is good, if asked sincerely. I also stand with Plato as a lover of Socrates and the hard question. However, skepticism (God bless it!) is just one tool in a philosopher’s tool kit. It cannot be basic, because then one would end up being skeptical about skepticism itself. Instead, I prefer moving ahead with beliefs (properly basic ones and ones rationally developed from those) while always examining them with best reason.

In any case, my friends who are non-theists are good folk and deserve a hearing. They think I am wrong and many of my views dangerous. Of course, I return the favor! However, the best way to deal with such disagreements is in the free market of ideas.

This is not an apologetics blog, of course. There are many good resources on line. However, for those interested in serious work, I would recommend getting off line and reading some back issues of Philosophia Christi (http://www.biola.edu/philchristi/) which is young, but growing publication from my school or some other serious journal in philosophy of religion. The best group to examine is the Society of Christian Philosophers. On a popular level, I admire the folk at Stand to Reason (http://www.str.org/).

Between Two Worlds: Stassen and “A Call to Concern”

Between Two Worlds: Stassen and “A Call to Concern”: “By way of review: Glen Harold Stassen, an ethics professor at Fuller, wrote an op-ed piece (Pro-Life? Look at the Fruits) arguing that abortion have risen under Bush’s presidency due to conservative economic policies.”

The above is a brilliant blog on this issue which everyone should read.

Fuller is rapidly becoming a haven for advocacy scholarship. It is one thing to blog about political opinions as a faculty member. Faculty both right and left have a right to do this sort of thing. (Thank goodness!) It is another thing to allow your scholarship to be tainted by your personal political agenda. Stassen has twisted his written, professional work to advocate a political position. Fuller should investigate.

Stassen should remember basic causation. Bush has directly caused and has not advocated a single abortion. John Kerry will make Stassen and all the rest of us pay for abortions with our tax money.

Fuller is not a University, it is a seminary. As such it has less room to hide when it hires people who are favor of abortion and then lie about it. It is a place many evangelicals use for training pastors. I think they should question that decision. Why?

Fuller Seminary is a place where present faculty deny the existence the human soul and of angels and demons. On the other hand, it is a place where if you think women should not be priests or pastors, you are in real trouble. (What happened to the Orthodox faculty at Fuller you might ask?) Sadly, it is a place afraid to have Phillip E. Johnson in the front door on campus, despite the fact that Johnson is one the best and brightest evangelical thinkers in the world today. Surely this is in part because Seminary must fear their own far-left of the evangelical center faculty.

Main stream evangelical media has run cover for schools like Fuller. Academics used to be able to deny the faith in publications little read by the mass of Christians, while public relations people talked up missions. Sadly for Fuller, the blogs will not allow this anymore.

Of course, Fuller has the right to be what it is. Traditional Christians should know what it is. After all, if we want a big name seminary education who would choose Fuller? If Fuller is no longer in the center of evangelical discourse, then why go there at all? Talbot at Biola is a sound, evangelical choice with sound academics for pastoral training. Princeton is a bigger name main-stream choice on the University model where evangelicals are welcome. Fuller may end up as a school without a market.

There are good people at Fuller, really great men and women. Here is hoping some of them stand up and decide to change the school before traditional Christians give up on it.

Frank Pastore

I will be on the air with Frank Pastore tonight about 6:15.

One thing we are likely to discuss is Billy Graham. Graham is coming to Los Angeles in November for a Crusade that will mark both the start of his ministry and its close. It was Los Angeles that put the young Graham on the map and I am praying that it will be the same city that will provide a glorious capstone to a life well lived.

Graham is the elder statesman of American Christendom. The number of people he has brought back to a living faith is amazing. Liturgical churches, like my own, have finally realized that Graham is their friend, not somone to oppose. After all, no real Christian thinks food festivals and ethnicity equal salvation. No Christian thinks salvation can be earned by works. Every Christian thinks that a turning to Christ and a living faith are necessary for salvation. This is Graham’s message, the gospel, and it changes lives.

Our culture hides from our need. We are sin ridden. Sin eats us alive. We attempt to make holiness bad (”Repression!”) and the libertine lifestyle acceptable. Experimentation takes the place of ancient wisdom.

Our society has no “save game” feature like my favorite computer games. Make a mistake with society and people get hurt. Sin hurts. The wisdom of the Creator has always pointed this out and six thousand years of human experience show His Words are true.

Sin cannot be wished away. It is there. It hurts our souls continuously. Plato was right when he argued that injustice was bad in itself, even if no one knows. I have personally experienced the release and forgiveness from sin that comes from being born again. The daily mercy of God is just as sweet.

Our nation is divided, but it is not between red and blue states. The real division is not in politics, culture, or society. It is in the heart of each man. This division in our souls is the real war. Some hearts give in to vice and other allow mercy to change them. Vice is a siren that seduces with the easy way and destroys men. Mercy chants of a hard road that restores us to proper order. For decades now, Mr. Graham has stood, just as he is, singing God’s song of love for us. Lamb of God, we come!

Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

The Lady

This is not about politics or it should not be. It is about the thousands of women I have met who are mothers, simply wives and mothers. As a group they get terrible press and it does have a painful impact. They do not complain to me, but if you ask how they feel about their portrayal in the culture, you better be prepared for an answer.

Work hard at being a wife and mother and you are pictured as a selfish life-denying drudge. “Barefoot and pregnant” and in need of liberation, you are pathetic and sadly don’t know it. You cannot really be blamed for your child-like behavior. Men made you do it. One Berkeley stranger stopped my wife in the street with her baby carriage and said, “You did not have to have those children.” My wife calmly said, “It is a little late to tell me now.” and walked on down the street. But when did having a baby carriage become a sign of oppression?

Of course, most homemakers don’t stay at home all the time. Like the Biblical example of womanhood in Proverbs, they are leaders in their community. However, even there society has a great stereotype for you: “the church lady.” You are a busy body with too much time on your hands. Worse still you are taking jobs from people who need them. Besides late night humorists have proven that you are querulous and ugly.

Suppose you are attractive, your house is in good order, and you seem to have it all together. Ah, then you are a Stepford Wife with no soul. If you do have a soul, we know it is full of repressed and hidden pain. As ABC describes it, you are a “desperate housewife.”

Education is set up to promote career and denigrate homemaking as an option. If it is presented, it is done in an offhand and unattractive way. (”Of course, most of you will want to be a success.”) We have “Take Your Daughter to Work” day, but no one suggests “Keep Your Daughter at Home,” at least in the main stream media.

Even Christian colleges often encourage this attitude. “Why do you think God had you get a degree from Wheaton (a prestigious evangelical school) if you were just going to be a mother?” one of my students innocently asked my wife. My wife just wisely listened, but then wondered when homes had stopped requiring our best.

I have found the homemakers of America to be amazing, the cultural glue that keeps society going. They run the volunteer organizations that keep society healthy and government small. They are beautiful, but not in the nearly dead, taped-into-place (usually by men who don’t like women) fashion model sense. Homemakers are very bright, replacing an expensive and socialistic education system with a varied home-school network of their own. It has grown so amazingly and is so effective, that feminists would celebrate it, if they did not hate the women and ideology involved.

“Dare to defy!” said sixties feminists and then marched their followers into corporate cubicles. “Dare to defy!” said my wife to the spirit of the age and replaced the popular culture with one of her own making. She creates music, educates, and art. Who is on the cutting edge?

What have we lost? We have lost that rare and precious thing: the Lady. One would never be crude around her, because she was too good for it. She was no prude and could walk through a sewer for her family without it touching her if she had to do so. She was the West Virginia woman, proud and free, who worked hard in the fields and created the folk art of modern museums without knowing it. She created effortlessly. Every Lady becomes a reflection of Our Lady, a high calling indeed.

Of course, some women will choose not to marry or will be unable to do so. Other married woman will not have children. They will work outside the home. There is nothing wrong or “less than” about this calling. My own church has always had women whose work outside the home was valued as “equal to the apostles.” They ruled kingdoms and wrote great books. Not one of them felt the need to demean their sisters with the holy calling of homemaker. They praised the keepers at home and their sisters at home thanked them for their noble labor.

When I was a feminist, I thought the ideals of real choice were what the movement wanted. I know better now. There was never a place for mothers and children, or even men, in the brave new world of mainstream feminism. It is a war against tradition and homemakers, slaves to the feminists, were the first casualty. God help me, I too fell for that rhetoric for a while.

So Theresa Kerry has merely, thoughtlessly, repeated the cant of the Women’s Studies Programs of the nation. Who can doubt that this is what she feels? It is time to express our anger and defend homemaking. It is a job. It is a calling. I have seen it from beginning to its end and it is a mighty thing. Ms. Kerry value is never measured in money and the life lived in pure service, never touched by a paycheck, is great indeed.

There is a place in any civilized culture for the Lady, the woman will not stoop to conquer. She is the woman who works hard, often thanklessly, to create without pay. Her children rise up to call her blessed.

If America wants a First Lady, we know where to turn. Of course, this not a constitutional role, we have had a bachelor president and the Clintons. The republic can stand without a Lady.

Theresa has chosen to be no Lady and that is her right. She seems an accomplished person. It is not a bad thing to be no Lady, even in traditional societies other roles are open to women. Thank goodness our culture allows even more freedom than most for people to fill the God has called them to fill.

However Theresa must not demand the respect we would show a Lady. We will treat her as she has become. If she wants to be the hard talking woman of the world, then she will receive that respectful treatment. That is an ancient and honored role. (Would she were an Alice Roosevelt!) If she must denigrate Ladies, she must not be surprised if they strike back in their own ways and she must not cry foul if the men who love them defend their worth. For we know their worth, it dazzles us every day.

Every Sunday I see the end of the Lady: the beautiful woman, the churchwoman. She is the grandmother kneeling in prayer in the pew across from me. She is well turned out, as she honors God with her best. She is worn perhaps, but like stretch marks in a mother, these are the marks of love. Yes, as Hallmark-greeting-card as it seems, she has become more beautiful with time. Her soul is nearly fit for Paradise as the Master has smoothed away all the youth and left the good behind. Her eyes shine brighter now.

Every day I see another Lady: another beautiful woman, my wife. She has hard days. The job of creating civilization is great. She strains under the added load of being a Lady in a society that despises her role. God help me, I have not always seen her great value or the worth of it all myself. She is with me every day and so the sanctity of her path is lost to me. I need to be reminded.

Ms. Kerry has done this for me today. She has caused me to stop and look at the woman next to me, so strong and so often tired. How can I honor her? How can I go beyond words to show she is a Lady and of great value, greatest value, to the nation?

I remember. There is one other role now much missing in our culture: the Gentleman. Having married a Lady, allowing such glory to be near, I have the duty to change. And so I am reminded of the Lady and Gentleman in the White House: the man who married his social inferior for love and not money and the woman who civilized the man and helped save his soul. They are a good pattern for me to follow. Since I am married to a Lady, like the First Lady, I must strive to become a man like the President, a Gentleman. So help me God.

Who said politics could not elevate the soul?

Calm

I remember pulling for Reagan so hard that on election night the couch was shaking from my case of teen nerves. What made me so nervous? Even though Reagan was leading in the polls, smart people kept talking about the big reasons polls were wrong. I believed every single thing, or feared every single thing, said by Carter spin guys. Reagan went on to win in a land slide.

Bush will not win in a land slide. He leads in the polls, but now we are being told about undecideds, swing states, and new voters. Here are my four things to ignore in a race:

1. Candidates who say they have new voters not showing up in non-partisan polls. Candidates who rely on new voters end up like Howard Dean in Iowa. Give me unions, evangelicals, or minority get out the vote machines, they have a track record of voting. . . let’s leave the mystery voters alone.
2. Candidates who say their “internals” are much different than national polls.
3. Candidates who ignore the trend and stick with this weeks numbers with almost two weeks to go. (”But some polls show X still up/close in Ohio!” when X is fading nationally. Ohio’s polls will follow.)
4. Hate never wins. If so, Dole would have been president. Never bet on the man loved for being Not the Other Guy.

So: Bush will win. Probably.

One caveat:
There is the “October surprise.” That is real. If Bush had told the truth about his DUI before the Democrats outed him on election weekend, he would have won a close race. There would have been no hanging chads and Al Gore highly paid cads.

However, Bush is a known man. New personal information? Not going to happen about Bush, but perhaps about Kerry. In the same way, good news (major terrorist captured!) could help Bush. It is hard to imagine what bad news is not already factored into the race.

Battlegrounders on National Review Online

Battlegrounders on National Review Online: “The ABC poll has some interesting detail that shows that 33% of those polled say that the economy/jobs is the most important issue (it is 26% nationally). This may explain Kerry’s lead. The poll also found that the proposed amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage is ahead, 48-45%.”

I was worried about this ABC poll until I saw the gay marriage vote. If California can pass our DOMA (Prop 22) by sixty percent of the vote, Ohio will do at least that well. There is something wrong with this poll.

On the other hand, Arnold being sent to Ohio would seem to indicate that the Bush campaign needs help.

The Silence of the Domes

The Silence of the Domes

Edwards’ Iliad

[1] Sing, O goddess, the hair of John-Boy son of Edwards, that brought countless ills upon the Democrats. Many laughing voter did it send hurrying to the polls, and many did it remind of their prom date,

[5] and poodles, for so was the will of Zeus fulfilled from the day on which the son of Kerry, Theresa’s John , and great George Bush, first fell out with one another. And which of the gods was it that caused the endless primping that doomed him? It was Narcissus, Edwards god; for he was angry with Kerry’s son.

[10] and sent a camera upon the boy to film him styling, because the son of Edwards had tried to seduce all women voters. Now Cheney had come to the debate of the Americans where Edwards mentioned his daughter, breaking deepest rules of civil discourse: moreover Cheney knew something and Edwards nothing

[15] and Cheney besought the Democrats, but most of all the two, Kerry and Edwards, who were their chiefs. “Man of Breck,” he cried, “you of the helmet hair, may you never have my baldness, but recall this, Bush and I have kept your homes in safety;

[20] and freed noble Iraq, and we accept no ransom for hostages, in reverence to Adams, son of Adams.” On this the rest of the Americans with one voice were for respecting noble Cheny and voting the ticket that he offered; but not so Edwards,

[25] who yipped at him and made his bangs to flip. “Old man,” said he, “let me not find you carrying on about Iraq, nor yet speaking of safety. Your wisdom from the gods and your work shall profit you nothing. My goal is women’s votes. And I know they loath the old

[30] and love rougish boys like me, busying myself with comb and compact; so go, and do not provoke me or I shall make fun of your suit.”