Proclaiming the Year of God's Favor

Citizens of a New Kind of Country

A reflection on the life and politics of Jesus by Lyndon Perry

I’d like to tell you about a man who was born in Palestine a number of years ago. He was seen by more than a few as a revolutionary figure. A Yassar Arafat, if you will; a polarizing figure who spoke of a new government for Israel. This really disturbed the higher-ups, of course, but excited many of the common people who had been living like refugees in their own country – occupied territory! – for many years.

It’s strange, the story of this man. Predictions about him becoming a kind of prime minister, king even, of Israel began when he was born. His mother Mary, for instance, believed God was going to throw princes from their thrones so that her son could reign. His uncle, Zechariah, called him a political savior - like King David of old. When he was born he was even named Yeshua, or Joshua, which means “God will save.” (Of course, we know him by way of his Greek name, Iesous, or Jesus.) It was prophecy fulfilled: this Yeshua was destined to save his people from their oppressors. At least, that is what so many people believed.

You see, foreign armies had occupied the Eastern Mediterranean Seaboard for nearly 400 years. The enemy’s presence was a constant reminder of their once free nation. And the people were bitter, some were divided. All anticipated a day when things would be better.

Yeshua grew up with much the same anticipation, but he was not bitter or alone. There was his cousin, John. They were likely good friends. They must have played together, talked with one another, dreamed of the future – a future where God would rule through one person chosen especially for the task. A messiah. They yearned for this future and had a feeling that they were going to be a part of it somehow.

 As John and Yeshua grew they saw the political climate of Israel change. Revolutionary groups sprung up, died away, and sprung up again. Would-be saviors were killed and their cause humiliated. Yet one loosely organized underground resistance force gained strength and numbers. They were known as the Zealots. Their purpose was to overthrow their oppressors and reestablish a government by the people, for the people - the chosen people!

Neither John nor Yeshua joined the Zealots but each knew the day was coming when they would have to act, when God would call upon them to fulfill their destinies as agents in the new government. So they continued to talk and dream and prepare. For they would have to be ready; one day they would have to act.

One day John did.

I've Been (de)Classified

Checked out my referrers this morning and found a link from the Wonkosphere Directory where I discovered that Bloggin' Outloud has been classified as "Conservative."

Well, I don't have a problem with that. I probably am conservative. But I've never liked Bush, although I am not a Bush-hater. And I'm not like all those disgruntled Republicans who have given up on Bush . . . I didn't like him from the beginning. I think he's a moral leader (his stand on stem cell research and abortion are right on target) - I just think he's a weak leader.

Someone asked me if I'm a RINO - and I had to look that up. I guess I could be except I'm a registered Democrat. So that makes me more of a DINO, I suppose.

So you decide:
+ I like Bill O'Reilly for the most part but won't listen to Rush.
+ I support our troops but we should bring them home from Iraq.
+ I believe terrorists want to destroy America, so we should kill them first.
+ I think people who pursue homosexual relationships should be treated with respect, but not rewarded for it.
+ We better take care of our planet, it's the only one we got.
+ Abortion is the killing of babies and will one day be outlawed, like slavery was. And, like slavery, we'll wonder how we could ever have allowed it in the first place. Unless, of course, we go the opposite direction as a culture and start killing disabled babies, unwanted children, problem teens, handicapped adults, and nursing home geriatrics. Which could well happen.
+ Oh, and I believe Hillary Clinton will be our next President.

UPDATE: Like Mike Adams, I support Michael Vick.

So have you decided? Conservative or Liberal or Independent?

Carter on Foreign Policy

Full Hat Tip and credit go to Basil for this observation.

Jimmy Carter criticizing President Bush on foreign policy?
Calling his the worst administration ever? Hmm...

Thought that was ironic, so I turned it into a comic strip.
(With apologies to Basil for totally stealing his idea.)

A Toast to Sarkozy

Fred Thompson has written a short but insightful piece at Townhall.com on the question, "Why has "anti-American" France elected a "pro-American" president in Nicolas Sarkozy?"

It could be that France is not really anti-US. The French media, like American media, seem to be in opposition to democratic ideals and not the French people. Thompson writes:

I think that's part of it, but it also has a lot to do with Iran's race to get nuclear weapons and missiles capable of striking the heart of Europe. President Ahmadinejad has been regularly threatening European nations that won’t go along with his master plan.

Ahmadinejad’s threats are taken particularly seriously by the French, because there are a lot of people inside France who seem to share his goals. For years, the French have endured terrible intimidation, violence and riots at the hands of people who openly hate their democratic institutions. In the run-up to the presidential election, French voters were plainly threatened with even more bloodshed and destruction if they dared to elect Nicolas Sarkozy. As promised, that violence is now taking place nightly on streets across France.

The refusal by the French people to bow to this political extortion should be recognized and cheered. They have not only sent a message to anti-democratic forces inside and outside their borders, I believe they are telling us something even more important. We are beginning, I think, to see our old friends and allies put aside disagreements and rivalries to do what has to be done. It has been a long road, but the forces of civilization and order are beginning to understand that we are in a global struggle against the forces of death and destruction.

Please read that last line again. The forces of civilization "are in a global struggle against the forces of death and destruction." Thompson is right on. The only question is, will Europe wake up in time? All the more important an issue now that England's Tony Blair has resigned.

But for now, let us re-think our "boycott France" mentality and raise a toast to Sarkozy with - as Fred Thompson suggests - a bottle of French wine.

Oh, and btw, if you're interested in the Fred Thompson for President blogroll, check out Texas Fred's Blog Roll America site.

Bible in Georgia Schools? Teach It!

When it comes to biblical literacy, Georgia doesn't want any child left behind.

First the news...From Washingtonpost.com:

Georgia's public schools walk a delicate line as they decide whether to offer the nation's first state-funded Bible classes. . . . The state school board approved curriculum in March for teaching the Bible in Georgia's high schools.

According to the AP article, the implementation of the program is up to each school district and the classes themselves are elective. The guideline - teach it, but don't preach it! Classes are to be taught "in an objective and nondevotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students."

Critics claim the new law will open schools and teachers up to lawsuits for crossing the "Church/State" boundary while others fear that classrooms will become pro-Christian sanctuaries. Another concern is that Georgia's law does not give enough guidance on how to teach the bible since no additional training for teachers is required.

Now my opinion...From Bloggin' Outloud

While these concerns have some merit they aren't any different than what is currently the case in our public (read government run) schools. First, people are lawsuit happy and any perception of a violation of their rights gets some folks' dander up. Second, classes are elective. If Christian students want to turn it into a sanctuary, God bless them. And third, when has there ever been enough guidance on how to teach anything effectively? I say, give it a shot.

The Bible as Literature: Time Magazine's Feature on Bible Literacy Project.

House Committee Passes Thought Crimes Bill

1984 here we come.

The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill recently that has some alarming implications. Chuck Colson writes at Townhall.com -

If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down.

In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment.

This has already occurred in Canada, England, and Sweden. This bill, currently titled the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act", could come before Congress very soon. Contact your representative and urge him or her to vote against it.

For Orwell's sake.

Also...
See WashingtonPost.com for an article on why black pastors are concerned about their right to preach a biblical sermon on homosexuality.

This article quotes some doofus named Kwabena "Rainey" Cheeks (a Bishop? ha!) who said, "This legislation is needed because gay, lesbian, bisexual individuals are not protected under the law." What crap is this?

As Colson points out in his column, "In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals - far less than even 1 percent." We already have laws that protect people and property. And homosexuals are people, right? Then they deserve protection like everyone else. But not special protection.

Update ~ Visit Adam's Blog for a Podcast on this very topic.

Anti-Catholic Bigotry

What crap is this?
This editorial cartoon appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer in the wake of the Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.


I agree with Chuck Colson who, in today's Townhall.com column, appropriately blasted the Inquirer's cartoonist Tony Auth for his recent editorial:

The cartoon’s message was clear: The Catholics had voted, not to uphold the law, but to impose their personal religious views. It’s a graphic example of anti-Catholic bigotry.

In a letter to the editor, Donna Farrell of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia wrote:

This is a human issue, not a Catholic one. To label it Catholic in such a prejudicial fashion unfairly dismisses all those of other religions who stand together against abortion. I cannot imagine the media would make an issue of the justices' religion were it anything other than Catholic.

She's right on target.

La Shawn Nails It

La Shawn Barber, in her Townhall.com column earlier this week, absolutely exposes the insanity of the pro-infant-death movement:

Pursuant to Roe v. Wade, women retain the 'right' to have their babies killed, but the abortionist can't extract a live baby and then kill him. He may rip the child apart in the womb first and remove body parts, or he may kill the baby in the womb with a poisonous solution, then remove the intact corpse.... Attention feminists: WOMEN STILL HAVE THE SO-CALLED RIGHT TO KILL THEIR BABIES FOR ANY REASON! STOP YOUR SQUAWKING!

Keep at it La Shawn.

Context: Supreme Court Upholds Curb on Abortion
5-4 Vote Affirms Ban on 'Partial-Birth' Procedure
More discussion and a graphic graphic at La Shawn Barber's Corner.

McCain's Bid For President

According to the Washington Post, Senator John McCain is calling for bipartisanship in his presidential bid:

And, in sharp contrast to the more conservative rhetoric he has favored recently, McCain called for a new spirit of "common sense" and bipartisanship to solve the nation's biggest challenges.

Good for him. But why is McCain's call for cooperation described as a "sharp contrast" to conservative rhetoric? Shouldn't conservative voices be characterized by this common sense approach? Maybe we're getting back to our roots.