Toyah

Blandus Rex asked, after my last post on Leviitcus and Jeremiah,

"[Do] Christians (true decendants of Abraham) [have a responsibility] to fear God's judgement on their lands if they do not strive to obey His (at least Moral/Ethical) law?" or "Is there some scripture honoring belief by Christians that could say, "Hey look at how serious God was about these kinds of things for the people-group He had a special relationship with. If He was that serious with his chosen people, how much more serious will He be on 'all the nations?' America had better repent!"

I see this as two questions, requiring two answers. Christians do claim to be the spiritual heirs of ancient Israel, thus whatever God said to the ancient Israelites is certainly applicable to modern Christians, though modified by the New Testament covenant and by the modern situation (the fact that, as I pointed out earlier, there is no covenantal relationship between God and country anymore). Certainly God's dealings with ancient Israel are instructive in understanding God. Knowing how He reacts to those who hold His laws in contempt should make Christians that much more careful and serious about their commitment to the cause of Christ.

For the relationship between modern nations like America and God, however, I think the parallel is not to ancient Israel but to the ancient pagan lands around Israel. What is important is not that Moab, Philistia, Edom, etc. were pagan, but that they were nations which God had not made a specific covenant with. God did judge each of these nations, just as He did Israel and Judah, but not on the same standard. If I recall my minor prophets correctly, He condemned Moab not so much for worshipping Molech, but for worshipping Molech with infant sacrifice. The other scripture which is instructive on this point to me is God's comment to Abraham, that He would give Canaan to Abraham's descendants, but not yet, because the iniquity of the Ammonite was not yet complete. I read that to mean that God did hold the Ammonites to a standard, but not to a covenantal standard. I think He judged the Ammonites on the standard of Romans 1: natural law, the things that everyone naturally knows is right and wrong. The Ammonites were wicked, to be sure, but it would require 400 more years before God was ready to destroy them.

So, yes, God does judge nations. Christians can work to influence their fellow citizens to act in ways that don't antagonize God. And certainly, Christians can draw lessons from God's dealings with ancient people, including the Israelites. However, I think Christians have two loyalties. The first is to God, and thus the first and most important question to a Christian is: God was serious with His chosen people in ancient times---am I being serious before Him? The second loyalty is to their country. I care deeply about my country, very very deeply. But on another level, it's only a temporary thing. I'll be here for at most another 60 or 70 years, and it isn't likely that anything I do will greatly influence my people one way or another. When I'm dead, America will continue on, although hopefully I'll have done more good than harm. Given that, though, what I do for God is much more important than what I do, or even worry about, for America.

Lance Armstrong has just smoked the world, again, in the most famous bicycle race in the world.  This is a beautiful warm up for the immense USA love that I am about to display in front of my tv while watching the family of NBC networks.www.usolympicteam.com   The olympics are possibly my favorite expression of sports, and with my well-known love of basketball this is quite a statement.  I am thoroughly enjoying the line of commercials currently running that essentially say that "the time has come for all americans to have the same favorite team....team USA, 300,000,000 strong"  The olympics join two of my favorite things, the USA beating the snot out of other countries, and sports.  It must be special, because I will even watch gymnastics as long as the uniforms have USA on them.  Now we just need olympic ultimate frisbee, and for the tryouts to be somewhere in the midwest.   And now, would you please rise...www.treefort.org/~rgrogan/web/usa1.htm

Today, out of curiosity, I did a Google search for "Matthew O'Toole."  I found that there are plenty of other M.O.s in the world.  One played "Orc #2" in the Dungeons and Dragon's movie.  Another is the CEO of a major Canadian hockey equipment company.  There is another fellow who is a figure skater. 

I only spotted references to myself twice on the list, and neither reference was all too important.  Here is the link from the third page of the search.  The only other mention of me came from page twelve of the results. 

The latter reference fills me with much more pride, but comparing my results with some of the other Matthew O'Tooles makes me feel pretty insignificant.  I need to either get my name in the news or create a Google bomb.

Howdy, folks.  I'm checking in from a Starbucks in Odessa, Texas.  Farming out west for a few weeks--mostly driving a tractor and fixing flats.  The labor is a nice break from the law and provides time to ponder other things. 

Incidentally, I'm living about a mile from Toyah Creek, the inspiration for this blog's name.  No water in it today.  Behave yourselves, and support Nader!

As I was filling up at a gas station in Muskegon, I noticed two window stickers on the car in front of me which raised an eyebrow.  The first said "No Vouchers."  The other one read "Hillsdale College."  

A wolfpack, not a sheep herd. The New York Times reports on what the black box reveals about the final moments of United Flight 93 (the one that crashed in Pennslyvania). I'm very proud of those ordinary Americans.

Sorry I didn't get a post up last night, the College modem pool was down for service, so I had no Internet access last night. Blame Hillsdale College...

Several years ago, Phil came home from his introductory economics class and told me that he now knew that voting did not matter. I blinked: was he serious? He explained that, given the millions of votes cast, no one individual vote matters. I later took the same class myself, and had to admit the point made sense. But I’ve never been entirely comfortable with it, and I don’t think it’s merely because I want to believe that my vote matters, although I do.

My suspicion is that the answer is both no and yes. Anytime there are at least three voters involved, two of those votes won’t matter. The only vote that matters is the third vote, the one that breaks the tie. The other two voters, especially if they always oppose each other, might as well not bother voting at all, and give up their voting power to the third party, since it is that party which always decides things anyway. Thereafter, the third party, now the only voter, decides everything, and can even do things the other two don’t want to do. So, the other two votes do matter, acting as an invisible check on the tiebreaker.

Let’s try another example. Suppose Tom is a pilot in the RAF in World War II, during the Blitz. There are hundreds of German bombers flying to attack Britain: it does not matter how many he shoots down, most of them will get through. At most, if he is extremely good and extremely lucky, he might shoot down three or four bombers. It is not in his individual best interest to fly the missions. He has a good chance of getting shot down himself, or killed; he will not stop the bombers, and he will not save his hometown, or any other British town, from being bombed. His vote does not matter.

If all the pilots follow this logic, none of them will fly, the Luftwaffe will destroy the RAF, the Wehrmacht will invade England, and all of the pilots will be sent to Stalag Luft 3. So, it is not in their self-interest for no one to fly. Actually, the best outcome for any RAF pilot is that he himself not fly, but everyone else does. If everyone understands this, it would lead to the absurd situation of every pilot encouraging every other pilot to fly, while excusing himself (this is where the sergeant says, “Enough B.S. boys, time to turn in. Anyone not on the flight line at 5am will be on latrine duty for a week!).

The individual actions do not matter, but the aggregate actions do matter, making the individual actions matter. Or does it? Much more to follow, but please contribute comments. I’m working this out as I go…

Hey boys.  Here in Michigan, many Republicans are trying to gather signatures to get Ralph Nader on the ballot for this year's election.  Many have called this move unethical.  I see how it can be construed as underhanded or indirect, but unethical?  Your views...go!

Apologies to any loyal readers we Toyahites may have: I haven't got much to say tonight. I'm working on an essay on third parties, and on Christians and voting, but neither can be written off-hand.

So you'll have to make do with some thoughts on Sandy Berger. He was President Clinton's National Security Advisor and is (was, he just resigned today) a top advisor on the Kerry campaign: he is currently under investigation for removing classified documents from the National Archives.

According to Berger, he inadvertently removed the documents and then inadvertently destroyed them. An honest mistake, that's all. Sorry.

I don't see how he expects us, the American public, to buy that, let alone the FBI. He was a National Security Advisor for at least four years (was he there all eight years?). There is no way he did not know the rules about handling sensitive information, and I simply cannot imagine that someone who had been in his position of responsibility would become so sloppy and careless to accidentally remove secret papers and then accidentally dispose of them. It's possible, to be sure. But it so stretches the realm of credibility that I find it an extremely dubious story, though I suppose it's a better defense than saying he removed them on purpose. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm finding it hard to believe.

If you’ve ever been around Christians---of any stripe---much, as I have, then you’ve probably heard your fair share of doom-and-gloom predictions. They generally follow the pattern of “God disapproves of X, America participates/tolerates/approves of X, therefore God’s wrath is sure to fall upon us.” Abortion, gay rights and/or marriage, divorce, and immorality in general are favorite topics.

I hear these sorts of comments especially when studying a book like Jeremiah, which is after all full of those kinds of prophecies. However, now that I’ve recognized the parallels between Jeremiah and Lamentations---parallels that I don’t think are accidental---I’m reconsidering whether the doom-and-gloom predictions by Christians are warranted. To be sure, God does disapprove of homosexuality, divorce, immorality, and the killing of the unborn. But it’s not logically valid to apply the same lessons from Israelite history to American history, though perhaps the principles still apply.

God made a specific covenant with the Israelites, a large part of which is set out in Leviticus. He promised them that He would do certain things for them, such as bless them and protect them from their enemies, if they would do certain things for Him, such as keep His commandments. He further promised that, if they did not, certain consequences would follow, becoming progressively more severe the less they repented. The prophets are documentation that the promises of Leviticus came true, pretty much exactly as God had promised. By the end of Jeremiah, only a very small, poor, desperate band of people were left in Canaan, the promised land. All the rest had been killed or dragged off to Babylon.

By contrast, there is no such covenant between God and America. It is true that most of the founders of America were Christian, but I’m not sure that fact, in itself, is any more significant than that they were also mostly of British stock. From both traditions---Christian and British---they drew inspirations for designing their new nation-state. But there is certainly no covenant relationship between God and Americans, as there was between God and the Israelites.

In my opinion, that means that the usual doom-and-gloom predictions by Christians are a bit off base. It may well be that approval of homosexuality is a bad thing for this country, or any other country, and that approval will lead to bad consequences. But we Christians must be careful and judicious in our use of the scripture, and not make it fit where it doesn’t fit. There are plenty of reasons to oppose homosexuality, divorce, immorality, and the killing of the unborn, but claiming that God’s judgment will fall on us as it did the ancient Israelites is putting words in God’s mouth.

Way back at the beginning of the year, I was challenged to read the Bible through. That's something I've done before, but not in a while. So I took up the challenge, the plan being to alternate books between the Old and New Testaments. I've often pondered why God arranged the beginning of the Bible as He did...one interesting book (Genesis) followed by about four of the most boring books in the entire Bible. Surely more than a few interested people have given up Bible-reading in despair, caught in the biblical Valley of Death?

I just finished Leviticus, which in my opinion is the most boring of all the boring Bible books. However, the reading was not without benefit. I've also been studying Jeremiah on Sunday mornings, and I happened on some intriguing connections between them.

Leviticus is the third book of the Pentateuch, and sets out most of the Law for the Israelites. Most of its chapters deal with ceremonial rituals and laws of personal relationship, along with health and sanitary rules, rules of warfare, and so on. For instance, the conditions for leprosy are spelled out exactly in Leviticus 13. If a man finds a bright white spot on his body, he must show it to the priest. If the hair has turned white and the mark appears deeper than the skin, it is leprosy, but if it appears otherwise, the priest shall isolate the man for up to 14 days, after which if the mark doesn't fit the definition of leprosy, the man shall be declared clean. If there is a boil on the skin, and the boil is white or reddish-white, the priest shall look at it...

It must've been exciting, to be a priest back in the old days. That is not, however, my point. At the end of Leviticus, in chapter 26, God tells them what will happen if they disobey Him and do not repent. Among other things, He promises that enemies will attack them and they will not be able to defend themselves. He promises that food will be short, and that indeed they will be forced to cannibalism of their own children. He assures them that, should they yet be unrepentant, He will scatter them abroad, and make their land desolate.

Now, to Jeremiah. Jeremiah was written a good many centuries after the giving of the Law. By the time the prophet Jeremiah wrote his book, Israel had been a nation for several hundred years, had split into two, and had (both parts) sunk deep into idolatry, with only ocassional lip-service to Yahweh God. And so God sent Jeremiah, along with many other prophets, to warn them to repent. Although by the time that Jeremiah was speaking, the chance for repentance had passed. He promised his listeners that the promises of God from Leviticus were about to come true.

What struck me, reading Leviticus, was how closely the pre-Exilic and Exilic writings parallel what Leviticus promised, among them Jeremiah. God promised that the people---as a nation---would be destroyed, and they were. He said they'd be scattered among the nations, and they were. He said the land would enjoy its sabbath rest (they were supposed to let the fields rest every seven years, which they never did), and it did (because there was no one, or few people, left to farm it). God made specific promises of what would happen, conditional on other things happening (the Israelites' constant, unrepenting sin), and those things did in fact happen.

I'm trying to avoid posting very long entries, a common occurrence given that I am somewhat long-winded. So I shall post part two of this tomorrow, which is a consideration of the parallels, if any, between ancient Israel and America.

Great (and funny) review of King Arthur!

I was mildly interested in seeing it, but don't think I will now. Even with the boiled-leather...yeah. Why does Keira Knightley like to play in movies with extremely dubious historical plots?

Oh yeah, and I'm gonna be away and unable to post for a few weeks, though I may happen across a computer on occasion...

The hardest thing for me about the election this year is keeping my perspective. As a friend of mine said the other day, the amount of venom in political circles is astonishing, and tends to make me want to give up. Someone I know wrote out a list of all the terrible decisions that President Bush had made, and concluded, "F*** you Bush!!!!!!!" in bold red letters, three times larger than the rest of the text. Not all of the left is crazy, and not all of the left wants to f*** Bush, but enough of it seems to have taken leave of it's senses that I tend to tune them out.

The problem is not limited to the left: there's more than a few on the far right who despise Bush almost as violently as the Michael Moore left. They list every economic mistake that the Bush Administration has made (the tariffs are popular for this), combine it with a shrill denunciation of the invasion of Iraq, and conclude that Bush is a liar in every sense of the word, who can't be trusted to tell the truth even about the weather. Ad hominem and non-sequiter attacks abound, from both the left and the right. A libertarian article yesterday accused Bush of vacillating, finger-in-the-wind politics ("worse than Clinton"), and offered as proof the handling of the Iraq war. I blinked: here I thought Bush had gone to war in the face of determined UN opposition and without overwhelming American support. Apparently he forgot to lick his finger that day, or something.

I'm a long way from a true-blue, cheering Bush supporter. He did disappoint me with a lot of his domestic policies. I'm not sure what to think about Iraq: I would like to believe that America's leaders made the best decision they could, based on what they knew at the time, and I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt: necessarily incomplete information will sometimes lead to bad decisions. It is also possible that the president and his people exaggerated their case in an effort to get support.

But I'm not allowed to be in the middle of the road (as a very wise man said, you tend to get squished there). The nutty leftists and the shrill right-wingers are both driving me to support President Bush. I want to carefully critique his statements versus his actions, do the same with Kerry, and decide which one is more trustworthy and more likely to make good decisions, and then vote accordingly. The struggle for me is to maintain my sanity in the meantime, and not get caught up in the chaff which is obscuring the radar. I'm tired of this election, and it's only July!

hello guys

i went back to columbia for one of my famous four day weekends and didn't check my e-mail. so today instead of replying to the e-mails I will just join the fray this way. Today's rant...part one: people should have to take some sort of test to prove they are not idiots before they can have bank accounts...part two: the idea that kerry is electable is ludacris (ridicu LOUS) *that was for kehr* but morons keep talking about it like it's a viable option. booo!!! *that was for o'toole* if 37% of americans vote for the idiot michael moore should be shot *that was for jim* sorry to the texans, i really don't have any special thoughts for y'all.

dallas

Follow up to Phil's post about the liberal media:

"On Inside Washington, a weekend discussion show taped at and run by the Gannett-owned CBS affiliate in Washington, DC, WUSA-TV, and carried by many PBS stations across the country, [Evan] Thomas pointed out the boost to the Kerry/Edwards ticket provided by the press corps:
There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards -- I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but -- they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points."

Evan Thomas is the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek. More.

I don't think all the media is liberal, or that it is consistently liberal all the time, or that every reporter is liberal, or that the general media is so liberal that nothing said by the media can be believed. Nevertheless, this is interesting.

I really appreciate you guys hosting this forum. It really reminds me of a high tech version of Benjamin Franklin's Junto. I'm sure we would make them proud!

"I should have mentioned before, that, in the autumn of the preceding year, [1727] I had formed most of my ingenious acquaintance into a club of mutual improvement, which we called the JUNTO; we met on Friday evenings. The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy [physics], to be discuss'd by the company; and once in three months produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any subject he pleased. Our debates were to be under the direction of a president, and to be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute or desire of victory; and to prevent warmth, all expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband, and prohibited under small pecuniary penalties." - Benjamin Franklin

CNN Headline: Political fund-raiser faces prostitution charge.

Where's the bias? I had to read down into the 13th paragraph before finding out who the pimp had raised funds for: Hillary Clinton, Joeseph Liberman, and yes, John Kerry. If the guy had been raising funds for a Republican candidate, the headline would have read: "Bush refuses to comment on fundraiser-orgy" or "Cheney blocks probe into alleged sex-ring fundraising."

Well I want to thank Phil for hosting this joint effort on his website. I hope to make some useful contributions, but I promise to post a few worthless words as well. Hopefully I'll be able to adapt to the new format without too many SNAFU's. I like the plug for mathematics up there on the headliner. Once the Big D joins the fun, you can add laziness.

Lately I have been listening to a lot more talk radio. Whether the topic is sports or politics, the switch on my receiver has been lodged in the little used AM position. I guess that I am getting fed up with hearing Slow Ride and Black Dog all the time on my classic rock stations. One can only listen to those same tunes so many times. Talk radio offers something fresh every day, and helps to keep me awake while I'm driving to and from Birmingham (where I teach my calculus course). Here is a brief list of programs that I have been tuning in to.

Jim Rome, 1-3PM. Rome is a nationally syndicated show that runs from 9:00AM-12:00PM PST. My local station only carries the last two hours. Rome is fun to listen to as he'll work in other aspects besides sports into his show. The best parts of the show are when he is off on some soliloquy about an issue or certain e-mails that fans have sent.

Bill "Huge" Simonson, 3-6PM. Huge is a Michigan sports guy whose show operates out of Grand Rapids. He has about seven affiliates across the state, and his popularity is growing. He also works current events well into his show, and he is pretty conservative. Huge tells it like he sees it.

Rush Limbaugh, 12-3PM. Y'all know who Rush is and what he's about.

Michael Medved, ???. I discovered Michael Medved on the way to teach in Birmingham. One day I was falling asleep at the wheel, and I found his show while scanning the AM band. Medved, a hard line conservative, mainly gets callers who disagree with him, and he takes on their questions. He usually has really good rebutal to anything thrown his way. The debate always wakes me up and makes sure I live to see the next day. He's a real life saver.

That's all that I really listen to. Sometimes I catch Sean Hannity, but not too often. I also will listen to this liberal Italian guy on Detroit radio every once in a while to hear what liberal radio sounds like. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I always enjoy a good radio show. Please, no suggestions for NPR. I already get enough goading for that from my buddy from Germany.

Good to be on board here.

I have a couple of blog-length (that is, relatively short) essays brewing in my head that I'll post soon, but I think I'll just make this an introduction post. Many thanks to Phil for sharing his blog with Matt and I!

First, (note the absence of "firstly": someone who knows who she is spent a lot of time coaching me on the irrelevance of the "ly") my name is Anthony Williams. I am a 2002 graduate of Hillsdale College, majoring in history and minoring in German. My history specialty is the early American republic and constitutional issues. The rest of my interests range from Harry Potter to Russia to the ancients, to system administration, networking, gaming, and in my spare time, woodcarving.

I had, and still do have, my own personal blog, as linked up there in the right-hand column. For reasons that are of little interest, I had to secure my Livejournal, as Phil said. But I still enjoy thinking about political things, writing my thoughts out, and posting them for public review. So, I suggested to Phil and Matt that we collaborate on a group blog; all were amenable, and the easiest solution was to modify Toyah into a multi-author blog. Besides, Phil already had a cool name, one that wasn't likely to be taken by anyone else.

It was big news last week when John Kerry chose John Edwards to be his running mate. Well, actually, it was kind-of-big-news. I admit I was surprised a little: I didn't think Kerry would pick someone so unlike himself, someone who could easily end up overshadowing him (I refuse to make lame jokes about their respective heights). My impression of Kerry is a weak man; not a bad man, but one who is easily controlled by stronger characters. He is credited with some courageous actions in Vietnam, to be sure, but we need someone who is strong and courageous now, not who was strong and courageous in 1968. And his recent record does not impress me as a courageous or strong record.

Furthermore, to be blunt, John Kerry is boring. He doesn't have a charismatic voice or tone of speaking, and doesn't frequently smile (but, to give him his due, he does have a nice smile when he does). So, by contrast to John Edwards, he's quite gray, while Edwards is colorful. I haven't personally heard Edwards speak, but I hear he does well, and he certainly sounds cheerful, and likes to smile. Presidents aren't elected on their smile alone, or so we hope, but a successful candidate has to be able to connect to the people. I think the Kerry campaign is hoping that Edwards will be able to help Kerry out in that regard. It may work, but I don't think it'll matter. I don't ever recall voting for a vice-president myself, nor ever speaking with someone who had. People always vote for the man at the top of the ticket.

I wonder though, if this is good for John Edwards? Does anyone remember Dukasis' running mate? Where is Dan Quayle, today? Who ran with Bob Dole? Could Al Gore get elected in Tennessee today, I wonder? If the challenger doesn't get elected, the vice president candidate is forgotten even more than the challenger is. That might be good: maybe Dukasis' VP was able to resume his own political career (though, I'm guessing it hasn't been very spectacular). But if anything "bad" emerges during the campaign, the VP will be stained too, if not as badly as the president-candidate himself. Likewise, even if the president-candidate is elected, the VP must run, later, with the shadow of the President over him, a problem that Al Gore had in 2000. Of course, if the President is popular, the VP could ride into office on his coattails, as George Bush the first did. But it seems to me that, politically, it's rather dangerous to run for Vice-President. If I were John Edwards, I'd have declined.

Toyah will now be a joint venture comprised of former Highlanders Matt O'Toole, Anthony Williams, and myself. Anthony will maintain his livejournal (friends only) blog and Matt his Trash Talk for private purposes, but we will use Toyah to discuss politics, current events, and whatever else we're moved to share. My old posts will remain on the blog, unless I can find something else to do with them.

We're in consultation with J-Rock, Higgin-booty, and big-D, also former highlanders, about joining as well. Good things to come...

A secular world that ratifies homosexual marriage would provide a legal foundation that would open the floodgates to civil litigation against religious leaders, institutions and worshipers. In such an environment, churches might be sued for declining to provide their sanctuaries for gay marriages, for example. Ministers could be sued for hate speech for giving a sermon on moral behavior. Churches that protest homosexual unions could face revocation of their tax exemption status. The delicate balance between church and state . . . is teetering on a high ledge at this moment. It's ironic that those who oppose churches' involvement in state concerns nonetheless have no compunction when it comes to the state dictating what churches can do. Even nonreligious folk should be concerned. Either we believe in separation of church and state or we don't, but you can't have it both ways. The July 12 debate is really a discussion about 'cloture' -- the process by which the Senate puts a time limit on filibuster, thereby allowing a bill to be voted on. In this case, 60 senators have to vote in favor of cloture for the Federal Marriage Amendment, defining marriage as between one man and one woman, to go to the floor for a full vote. Many senators prefer to delay voting rather than make their position public before the November election. But advocates for the amendment predict that November may be too late, that if President George W. Bush loses re-election, the amendment will be dead and marriage as we know it will be history.

--Kathleen Parker

Here at Toyah Creek, we consider it our mission to discover ways to end world hunger, save the whales, and make life better for all mankind. Well, as you know, we have already solved world hunger (private property, free-enterprise system) and saved the whales (private property, free-enterprise system, and Standard Oil). But we have been unsuccessful at making life better for all mankind. That is, until now. The answer? AddictingGames.com. We thought we'd share the product of our research with you in the hopes of making the world, and your workstation, a better place. Enjoy!

A mostly non-biased look at a Christian phenomenon in today's New York Times of all places. (free subscription required)

There's a pretty cool dramatic reading of the Declaration of Independence available here.

President George Washington
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

President Ronald Reagan
"Without God there is no virtue because there is no prompting of the conscience. . . . without God there is a coarsening of the society; without God democracy will not and cannot long endure. . . . If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under."

More details:


Update: The Austin American-Statesman, Austin's liberal paper, published this article on the rally. Notice the article does not mention that the homosexual activists repeatedly yelled and interrupted songs, speakers, and prayers with horns, shouts, and chants, including the frequent "liar, liar, liar" while Tony Perkins was speaking. This is not the way to win over hearts and minds, if that is in fact what these folks were hoping to do. To be fair, the interruptions were from a small minority of the activists. The speakers and anttendees responded with restraint and love. It is very saddening to see how hate seems to drive so many folks in the homosexual lobby. We all need Christ so very badly. We all need Him.

By Anita Powell
While nearly 100,000 Austinites flocked to Zilker Park for this year's Independence Day festivities, about 400 others thronged the empty Texas Capitol to toss a hot issue on the grill: gay marriage.

In sweltering late-afternoon heat, about 150 supporters of gay marriage and about 250 people on the other side of the issue participated in an impassioned but orderly event that featured singing, speeches and a spontaneous union of the factions for a group prayer on the Capitol steps.

"The issue is, we will be codifying into law what God himself has called an abomination," said keynote speaker Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Washington-based lobbying group that sponsored the Christian-centered event with Austin-based TakeUp.org.

Representing the opposition were the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas and Soulforce Austin, both gay rights groups.

Randall Ellis, executive director of the lobby group, said he felt it was his patriotic duty to represent gay rights.

"I would much rather be home with my mother and father," he said. "But I feel very strongly that I had to be here."

Austin resident Doug McArthur, 59, came with his wife, Joan, to support their daughter, who is gay.

"We have a 33-year-old boy and a 29-year-old girl," said Joan McArthur, 57. "And both of them should be able to marry their girlfriends if they want to."

Bryan Sturdivant, 46, brought his wife and daughter, but to support the opposite view. The family attends the Church at Canyon Creek, a Baptist congregation in North Austin that brought a group to the event.

"I believe God created us as man and woman, and that's the way it should be," he said. "America was founded on God. And we've got to get back to him."

Some Christians in the crowd did not agree with that message, however.

"I believe that God created all people and that everyone is equal in his eyes," said Kristen Thomas, 20, who is Catholic. "Jesus loved tax collectors, he loved prostitutes; why wouldn't he have loved gays?"

Megan Steves, 26, and Naomi Douglas, 28, stood with their arms around each other's shoulders on the Capitol steps. Steves held a sign in support of gay marriage that read, "I can't."

"Independence Day doesn't mean anything when people aren't able to make their own decisions," Steves said. "They did this with blacks. And they're doing this with gays."

But Julius Buckner, 50, who said he opposes gay marriage, blanched at the comparison to the civil rights movement.

"It's not the same," said Buckner, who is black. "They still have the right to do what they want to."

An unexpected moment of solidarity occurred at the end, when the Rev. Michael Hatcher, pastor of Lighthouse Community Church in Fort Worth, invited the protesters to join him onstage in prayer.

"Let freedom ring in your heart," he prayed, stricken with emotion, surrounded by a throng of activists, arms linked, hands clasped, intermingled and indistinguishable.

"I saw it as an opportunity to spread love," he said of his call to prayer. "For me not to call my enemies to come and reconcile would be the wrong thing for me to do."

From Jim Dunnigan on the Strategy Page:

June 29, 2004: Iraqi terrorists released a video showing them killing a captive American soldier by shooting him in the head. The terrorists have learned that the beheading routine is counterproductive and even offends many of their own supporters. The terrorists are probably also debating their suicide bombing campaign, which has killed over a hundred Iraqis in the past week. Perhaps the al Qaeda leadership is also pondering their long string of failures over the last decade or so. The fact of the matter is that al Qaeda, and their predecessor, the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt, have turned Arab populations against them whenever they practiced their terror tactics "at home." Moreover, when al Qaeda was in control of the government, as they were in Afghanistan, they quickly became hated by the average Afghan. Al Qaeda was most popular in Arab countries when it was not operating in any Arab countries, but instead concentrating on attacks on Western targets. But the war on terror has forced al Qaeda back to its homelands, and concentrated them in Iraq. There, al Qaeda is becoming as hated as it already is in the West. This hatred led to the Moslem Brotherhood's defeat, and expulsion from Egypt over a decade ago. The same thing is happening again in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Recent surveys have shown support for bin Laden and al Qaeda shrink dramatically in Saudi Arabia (from 96 percent in late 2001, to less than a quarter of that currently.) It's easy to admire terrorists from a distance, rather more difficult when they are terrorizing you. Iraq is rapidly becoming al Qaeda's graveyard.