Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Why am I not surprised?

I'm beginning to think I should make an "Irony Alert" a regular feature of this blog.

Today I learned of a new PAC called, "Matthew 25 Network". On the banner of their web page they specifically quote verse 40. Typical of the left, they assume that only candidates and policies which support big government programs care about, "promoting life with dignity . . .strengthening and supporting families . . ." Funny thing is, the last 40+ years of increasing government programs designed to help the family have made the goal of strong families even farther away. And the programs will continue to do so as long as they offer Big Daddy Government in place of flesh and blood fathers.

However, the PAC has endorsed Barack Obama, with the approval of signatory Brian McLaren. If you haven't been paying attention lately and wonder where the irony lies in this - go read Matthew 25:40 and then recall that their chosen one has the most pro-abortion record on record.


The group also lists a button on their front page which delivers you to another page on their website which starts: "Some in the faith community have been promoting false and misleading information about Senator Obama’s record on a number of vital issues"

The first point on which they attempt to "put away falsehood" is on Obama's support of what some have termed, "post-birth" abortion. The website claims Obama supported the Federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This is patently false, as Jill Stanek has shown. Obama actually OPPOSED changing the language of the proposed Illinois state law which would have brought it in line with the federal language. He then opposed the law altogether on grounds, according to his own words on the floor of the state senate, that he was afraid it would lead to a dismantling of Roe v Wade.

Monday, July 28, 2008

A Bad Influence?

I ask you - am I a bad influence on others?

This weekend I want shopping at WalMart. While I was headed down to the fizzy drinks aisle a package of Oreo cookies leaped into my passing cart! I took pity on the poor thing (things?) and let the package come home with me. However, since I feared eating the whole lot of them myself, I brought them into work to share.

What's so special about a package of Oreos? you may well ask.

Ah, the special thing about these cookies is . . .

Banana Cream filling!

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Shakespeare's thought for today

Here, then, is MacBeth's haunting speech which occurs near the end of the play:

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

You're a Heretic! No, YOU'RE a Heretic!

Egalitarian writers like Kevin Giles and many of his followers claim that orthodox Christians who defend the historic and universal teaching of the church regarding father-rule and sexual orthodoxy are guilty of the ancient heresy of Arianism for defending the eternal subordination of the Son. I'll leave the shredding of Giles's understanding of orthodox teaching and the quality of his work on this matter to others who have already done the job admirably.

The charge of heresy, however, is again flowing in a different direction. Steve Hutchens, over at MereComments, has hit the nail on the head (again) and laid a different ancient heresy smack on the doorstep of the religious feminists - modalism. [As an aside, it is interesting to note that they would be guilty of the same heresy as the pseudo-christian preacher, TD Jakes, for whom they do not seem to care.]

Here, Hutchens makes the charge:


Here he explains the analogy:


[I've removed a additional reference to "anthropological modalism" here until I re-read it and understand it better]

I haven't much to add - it's simply something that must be contemplated, puzzled through.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Someone should know about this . . .

One of my besetting sins is what should probably be called a variety of gossiping. I'll run across a blog or an article or just some little tidbit of knowledge and will be utterly convinced that "John Smith" really needs to know about this or Sally Doe needs to know what is being said over there.

And there are times when I really, really REALLY do not want to know some of the things I know (from having been on leadership committees and from having been in healthcare for almost 25 years). It would relieve a burden if I could share some of these things.

But the great majority of the time I really don't *need* to share any of it and sometimes I just, simply, should not.

For instance, I still check the blog of a seminary professor who is a feminist. I won't even tell you if this seminary professor is a man or a woman so you won't be tempted to try and figure out who it is. It will suffice if you know there is great irony being presented there - this professor thinks some are not careful with, "the treasures of orthodoxy" - that and some of the other points made in the post are richly ironic coming from a feminist who denies the treasure historic Christian teaching has bequeathed us in terms of sexual orthodoxy, isn't it?

But I already know this professor is a feminist - what more need I know?

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Barack Obama's Heroine and her Plan for Peace

In July of 2007, Obama gave a speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. After noting that Martin Luther King, Jr. had received the "Margaret Sanger Award" in 1966, he said the following:

That struggle for equality is not over and now we are at one of those rare moments where we can actually transform our politics in a fundamental way. But it’s going to take people as resolute as Mrs. Sanger and Dr. King. . .

The "resolute" Sanger was also resolute in her racism and support for eugenics. A short nine years before Dr. King accepted that award (his wife gave his speech for him), Sanger was interviewed on television by Mike Wallace. In that interview she said, "I was what I would call a born humanitarian. I don't like to see people suffer. . ." Sanger is also concerned with reducing the amount of sin in the world, "I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world--that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sin -- that people can -- can commit.."

In order to achieve this reduction in sin and human suffering, Sanger proposed a "Plan for Peace", which was published in the April 1937 edition of Birth Control Review:

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to
that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of
segregation or sterilization.

g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

The first step would thus be to control the intake and output
of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends; classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

This woman, whose resolute nature Obama thinks we need more of, was also an unapologetic racist and eugenicist and the creator of the "Negro Project":

We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro
population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members

This is the woman in whose name Martin Luther King, Jr. accepted an award. This is the woman whose type Obama thinks we need more of.

And if that isn't enough to convince you, Sanger also left her sickly daughter to die alone.

Oh, right, that's a peaceful woman who wants to reduce both sin and suffering.

Lord have mercy on us and preserve us from more of her kind!





Daniel Flynn, Intellectual Morons http://www.flynnfiles.com/

Yeah, now pull the other one . . .

I've heard tell Jim Wallis's mantra is, "God is not a Republican . . . or a Democrat". He's probably right. But then why is one of Wallis's God's Politics blog co-horts, Tony Campolo, serving on the platform committee for the Democrats? Campolo's stated aim is to press for, "the inclusion of an abortion reduction plank in this year's platform.


Who are the Sojourners or God's Politics bloggers serving on the Republican platform committee? What's that? There are none, you say? Oh.

Another small law


I want to beg someone to tell me this is a joke - but I don't think it is. Sometimes I wonder why I still love Britain and would, if I ever become fabulously wealthy, by a flat overlooking the Thames in London in a heartbeat.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Chesterton was right (again)


Chesterton said that, "When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws."

We've broken, attempted to repeal or forgotten some big laws - at least our governments have. I don't know how this is related to breaking big laws, but it most surely is a petty and small law.


A commenter has mentioned the article on Chesterton in the current issue of the New Yorker. For those who have read the article, I recommend a counterbalancing dose consisting in Dale Ahlquists's response, which you can read here:


Monday, July 7, 2008


Have you ever noticed that the more fast food "restaurants" and junk food resources we have - the more indigestion we have and the more "supplements" we need to get in our minimum daily requirements? Have you also ever noticed that the more sex everyone seems to be having the more "help" they seem to need to actually do it?

Now, tell the truth. When was the last time you pigged out on carrots? Hmmm? Ever eaten an entire pound of cherries at once? But I'll bet there is an occasion or two in your past that you'd like to forget where you ate a whole pizza or a whole bag of chips without noticing. Be honest.

The more junk we consume, the more we need to consume to feel satisfied. If we eat the good stuff, however, we don't need a gastric bypass to whittle down our bulges or the "purple pill" to take care of the indigestion.

I still remember the first time I had one of my favorite meals. Simple and yet, oh so gorgeous. It consisted of a small bottle of Perrier, I swear those little bubbles are smaller and ticklier than most fizzy waters. Then there was the cheese. It was a small wedge the color of a Colorado sunset that tasted like the warmth of midday. Next came the tomato. It was the perfect red and smelled of earth yet tasted like the sweetness of your first real kiss. There was a handful of nicoise olives, soft and with the perfect note of brine. Last was the rosemary-scented roll with a salty crust. All that was missing was a blanket, a sunny hillside and someone to share it with.

Isn't it amazing how those perfect, simple little things satisfy us in lasting ways that a greasy double-cheeseburger with soggy fries never could?

It is the same way with the "junk food" known as religious feminism. It will never be satisfied and will need to consume more and more and those who adhere to its tenets will become increasingly frenzied in their attempts to achieve validation. Just over ten years ago the leaders of CBE promised that their support for the NIVI and inclusive-language bible translations would stop with language for humans, it would never be applied to God. And yet at a recent Cornerstone Festival, the president of CBE was advocating that we call God "mother"! It will never be enough and they will never be satisfied because they aren't feeding on the good, the true and the beautiful - those things the give a lasting satisfaction.

I had a junk food day and you know what? I feel awful. I'll probably still feel awful tomorrow. But I do have some luscious green grapes, a nice piece of cheese and some walnuts on hand for tomorrow's lunch. Doesn't that sound better than stale tortilla chips with french onion dip? I think so.

And, as for spiritual junk? I'll leave the bitter fruit to the religious feminists while I contemplate the beauty of The Dance.

Thursday, July 3, 2008

SATC - another shamelss plug

I am noticing an interesting phenomenon among reviews of "Sex and the City" - the movie. I don't have certain knowledge about the lives and sins of the reviewers. However, it seems to me that those who have lived (however peripherally) the sort of lifestyle these four women personify, have a less generous reaction to the movie than those who have been sheltered and may have only flirted with that sort of sinful life by watching it on television.

I was late for church Sunday morning because I couldn't tear myself away from Colleen Campbell's interview of Dawn Eden, author of Thrill of the Chaste. I've begun browsing Dawn's blog and highly recommend it!


Tuesday, July 1, 2008


I just thought I would share my joy with all of you good readers (all two of you, that is!) - I am free for six days, yeah!!!!!

Through judicious juggling of holidays and trades and days off, I have nearly an entire week hospital-free. Of course it's not work-free, you know. I am going to endeavour to finish the spring cleaning on the basement that I began, oh, about three years ago.

And no, I won't come over to your house when I am done. phbllttt!

In future, please adress me by title . . .

My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is:
Honourable Lady Kamilla the Intractable of Much Madness upon Avon
Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title