Newsweek: Attack on Christianity

Newsweek Magazine is easily the worst magazine ever written. Jon Meachem’s scholarship is laughable. His refusal to ever really engage arguments against his position makes him dishonest, discredited, and an all around shill for liberalism. That made the December issue of Newsweek interesting because it was supposed to take head-on the Biblical position against Homosexual Marriage. Meachem’s introductory letter shows that he can only dismiss and not refute. I won’t get into that as Christianity Today actually does a good job of showing the lack of logic in Meacham. Yet, one could still hold out hope for the cover story to really get into the meat of things. Well, let’s just say the people working for Meachem have patterned themselves after their fearful leader.

Lisa Miller, the religion editor no less, shows that she has no idea what the Bible teaches or where it teaches it. That is not good for a religion editor. She starts off her pro-gay marriage piece by pretending the Bible only teaches polygamy or is indifferent to marriage all together. She finds no direct teaching that marriage should be between a man and a woman? Seriously. She cannot find Genesis 2:21-24 which includes this: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh." The creation story is not hard to find, and you don’t even have to read very far into the Bible to find the story. God thought it was not good Adam was alone, so he made Eve and God brings Eve to Adam and creates marriage between one man and one woman. Newsweek mentions this verse somewhere in the middle, but dismisses it by saying that the Bible was written by men, not God. Maybe Newsweek should just have written a magazine on something they understood better. Instead, they focus on a few examples in the Bible of what they believe is the Bible teaching non-traditional marriage.

Miller quotes Abraham sleeping with Hagar as a poor example of marriage. Yet, Miller apparently forgets that Abraham is rebuked for his failure in his marriage, and his sexual SIN with Hagar started centuries of violence and hatred between the descendants of Ishmael (Arabs) and Isaac (Jews). A rather important point. She quotes David, but forgets he was rebuked in 2 Samuel 12 and never commits the sin of polygamy again after it. She quotes Solomon but forgets that he is led astray because of his wives and it was clearly a sin. She quotes Jacob, but forgets he was tricked into marring Leah, and it still is sin. Miller is able to avoid all of that because she refuses to acknowledge the standard set in the second chapter of the whole Bible. She takes historical narrative and refuses to apply the standards in place to that narrative. 2 Samuel assumes that you are familiar with the 10 Commandments, which are listed in previous books. But that does not aid Miller’s argument so she ignores it. She then goes on to claim that Jesus was indifferent to earthly attachments especially family. That whopper must have taken years of imagination to invent. Sure, Jesus preaches that we ought to seek first the Kingdom of Heaven and the things above, but does this mean that all earthly things are indifferent or worse? Of course not. Jesus shows great family attachment even on the cross by making sure someone takes care of his mother. Jesus did not get married, but does that prove anything? No, of course not. Jesus had no problem healing Peter’s mother-in-law, which can only happen by marriage. He had no problem attending a wedding at Cana. He said the kingdom of heaven belonged to little children, which can only come through marriage. A point Jesus was very clear on. Such biblical ignorance from Miller is enough to disturb, not to mention undermine her point.

However, in fairness, she really rests her case on something else entirely. Love. Of course Miller has no idea of Biblical Love because she completely refuses to let the Bible define the term. Is homosexual activity really loving? The Bible does not think so. God says it is not. Some of you are probably wondering what Newsweek does with all the verses condemning homosexuality. Well, they are thrown out the door with the idea of modern progress.

Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?

First, these are not the only places where homosexuality is condemned contrary to Miller’s assertion. Second, we cannot throw out the law that easily. Reformed Confessions for centuries have talked about moral laws, ceremonial laws, and judicial laws, but such understanding is brushed aside by Miller as pointless. We can just ignore that part of the Bible. Why? Because Miller wants to have things her way and not God’s way. She even goes so far as to quote Miss Manners as a better authority than God.
Miller goes on to use the love and inclusiveness argument to push for gay marriage.

The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage.

Here we see that Miller again misses the point. Jesus is not arguing for inclusion. He is arguing for repentance. Yes, Christians are to reach out to the outcasts, the depraved, and even homosexuals. But the message Christ reaches out to them with is not “You are okay, come be a part of the community”, the message is "Repent and believe." Thus, the inclusion is based on the unity of repentance and belief in Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. This rules out the idea of staying homosexual since that is a sin that needs to be repented of, despite the throwing away of bible verses done earlier in the article.

This whole article is an example of what "liberal Christianity" really is: a complete and total rejection of the Bible. The people at Newsweek have trouble seeing that some people really believe their Bible. That is a laughable suggestion to the people at this horrible magazine, but it is what we Bible Believers should start expecting. To be called names, mocked, and yes even persecuted. Following the Good Book is not easy. It is not going to get us in good with Sean Penn and the Academy Awards, and Newsweek will hate you, but the pleasure of the King of Kings is all that should matter.

Something interesting to ponder

Why on earth is this not being reported? Obama returns Churchill bust.

This sounds like a fairly newsworthy development. Only in the UK is it actually making the news. Another commentary on the sad state of our news industry.

Presidential Rankings by C-Span

C-Span has put out another ranking of Presidents by 65 Historians. I always enjoy looking at these and wondering how bad our educational system has become. This list is not that different than other lists. Lincoln is first, which alone is enough to make me sick. Washington did beat out FDR for second, but the list is a joke. George W. Bush is 36 and his father rankings 18th. Hard to believe in either case. What makes it worse is that U. S. Grant is ranked 23rd! Are you kidding me? Buchanan comes in last with Andrew Johnson just in front of him.

The answer to these ridiculous rankings is seen when we look at two factors. The voters and the qualifications.

When I first looked at the list of participants I got a little excited as such historians as H.W. Brands and Edward Crapol participated. But a closer look unveils two major problems. For every early American specialist like Willard Sterne Randall there are at least two Civil War historians like Brooks Simpson (former Wofford Professor!!!) and Debra Goodrich, not to mention Andrew Ferguson and James McPherson. In other words, one can expect a high ranking for the Civil War guys and a downgrading of the Founders of America. The other major problem is the addition of Larry Sabato. C-Span must think he is either the greatest man in America or they think we are all idiots. Sabato is Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia. He is not a historian. And he is extraordinarily biased. I admit that all people are biased, but a guy who writes books entitled The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency, Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election and also writes a political newsletter, not to mention that he worked for Democratic politicians before becoming a professor is clearly over the line. This list then will be completely slanted by Sabato’s liberal left-wing agenda.

The second problem is the areas in which these presidents are ranked. We see things like Moral Authority, Administrative Skills, Vision, and International Relations, which I guess are legitmate. We see the Performance withint the Context of Their Times, which is kind of weird, but I can let it go. Public Persuasion is easier in modern times, but I will give that one a pass as well. Crisis Leadership is going to benefit those who were in a crisis. This may explain why George H.W. Bush gets so high, but this category does little to help poor Millard Fillmore who did not have a crisis to deal with. Then there are couple of categories that are outright biased. Pursued Equal Justice for All is going to slight every President before the Civil War. Economic Management is going to favor liberals and hurt early American Presidents who thought Economic Management to be unconstitutional. Then of course we have the Relations with Congress category. Andrew Johnson is dead last in this category, but is it bad that he fought the Radical Republicans? Sometimes an adversarial relationship with Congress is a sign of a good President not a bad one. Then of course we can wonder why Fidelity to the Constitution is not one of the categories.

Thus when we see the internal bias in the poll, we can understand why the results are so obviously wrong. We can see why FDR (3rd) is so high because people give him credit (wrongfully I might add) for the economy and for crisis management because of WWII. Kennedy (6th) and LBJ (12th) get artificial bumps for Pursuing Justice for All while Jefferson (7th) and Washington (2nd) take hits on that same category. Both of those men are outside the top ten in that particular category. Bill Clinton (15th) in fact is ranked higher than Washington in the Justice For All Category and in the Economic Management he comes in third. It is hard to take seriously a survey that puts Grant and Clinton two of the most corrupt politicians in the top 25 but consigns the only other President even close to as corrupt, Warren Harding, at 38. Clinton is 37th in the Moral Authority beating out Harding, but Grant manages to remain in the top 25. Can you imagine how high Clinton would be if Moral Authority were not a category?

A truly bizarre list. Worthy of noting and then tossing in the trash can.

Pirates in 09

On Friday the Pitchers and Catchers are required to be in camp for the Pittsburgh Pirates in what ought to be an encouraging year for the club. Now, I do think that they will miss out on the playoffs this year unless they can grab a wildcard on account of other teams folding up with injuries, but it should be a year where they can reach .500 winning percentage. Next year will be the year they win the World Series or at least the NL. The first of a long line of championship seasons.

The thing to watch in camp is the pitchers. Only one starting rotation spot is set with Paul Malholm having that spot. Ian Snell, Tom Grozelanny, Zack Duke, Ross Ohlendorf, Jeff Karstens, Daniel McCutchen, and Phil Dumatrait competing for the remaining four spots. Dumatrait was the best of that group in 2007 before he missed the rest of the season with an injury. Word is that he will probably even start this season on the DL rather than in the bullpen. He will probably take a second spot once he recovers. Ian Snell has not been promised a spot on the rotation, but he is making more money than the others, so I think he is likely in as well. If he would throw inside, he could be a great pitcher. The new pitching coach ought to be able to help Ian out and getting him back to top of the rotation status. This year’s success in my mind is attached to Ian Snell. If he has a bounce back year the Pirates are in good shape. If not, then they are going to be off to another slow start and the gloom will set in. Zack Duke is also making over a million dollars this season so it is hard to imagine him in Triple A, but his performance for years has been sub-par. I think he will be the message sent to players this year. If he does not earn it in camp, I think he will be sent down. McCutchen is too young, they won’t take a chance on him. Ohlendorf and Karstens are the two wild cards. They have great talent and if they can live up to part of that this year, then the Pirates will do well. Tom Grozelanny needs to regain his 14 win form in order to make the club. Another person to watch. I am not sure he will make it back.

The bullpen is also in flux, which is why I think they will miss the playoffs. Matt Cappas is the closer. Tyler Yates and John Grabow are the right and left hand short guys. I assume also that Sean Burrnett will make the team as lefties only hit .171 against him last year. That gives them another lefty in the pen and a middle distance kind of guy. The rest is up in the air. They picked up Donald Veal from the Cubs in a Rule 5 draft, which means they have to put him on the team or the Cubs could take him back. They did this last year with Evan Meek and put him on the team despite his obviously not being ready. I think they will do the same with Veal. Meek could make the team again. Craig Hansen was traded for, but really showed he was not so good. If he does not make the team, he is out of options, which means he will go on waviers. That would fill the roster, but I doubt Meek will make the team, so at least one more spot is open. Also Hansen could be one of those examples because he was really, really, bad last year.

The starting line up actually looks really good. The Pirates have Doumit and McClouth returning from great seasons. They still have Jack Wilson who can .300 as can a now healthy Freddy Sanchez. Nyjer Morgan looks ready for the Big Leagues and other outfielder Brandon Moss hit well from them last year after coming over from the Red Sox. The two LaRoche brothers at 1st and 3rd are the question marks. Will Adam continue starting slower than a car out of gas? Will Adam’s off-season swing change help him actually be able to hit the ball? Those are big questions. Thankfully, both have answers beneath them in the organization. The Pirates did sign Eric Hinske in the off season, and he can play either of those positions along with corner outfield. He will also add power from the bench, which has been missing. Neil Walker will be waiting in Triple A at 3rd and Steven Pierce will be a possible back up at 1st and the corner outfield spot from either Triple A or on the bench. It will be interesting where they put him. Back up catcher has a back log of talent. They got Jason Jaramillo in an off season trade for Ronnie Paulino, not to mention the star catcher from Triple A last year and the trade after the deadline that sent Jose Bautista to Toronto last year. Three catchers and one spot is a good problem to have.

In the end, the Pirates have the offense to compete. And they have the talent in the starting rotation, the question is will they put it together. Each year the start from the previous year has collapsed under the weight of being the ace. First it was Duke, then it was Snell, last year Grozelanny did not even stay with the big leagues he stunk it up so bad. This year it is Malholm. He has to respond. And one of the previous fallen aces has to return to form. They have plenty of other guys waiting with talent, but shuffling people around to find out who is going to perform is a recipe for a bad year. They need to get it right in Spring Training. The bullpen will fail them this year as well. They are putting together some arms down there, but they are not there yet. Too many Rule 5 picks to fill holes in the pen. That is a bad sign.

This year the Pirates have to find out who is big league material on their pitching staff. If they can do that this year, then next year the sky is the limit.

Obama against the Religion

We have now seen how President Obama views faith. We can put aside the idea that he is a new kind of candidate and a Democrat with religious values. All that has been proven to be false now. The President’s stimulus bill contains a provision to forbid the money going to any school that allows "religious worship" or contains a "divinity school". The point of the bill for me is not about discrimination. It is about trying to drive Christianity out of education. It is about giving people and incentive to get rid of ‘religious’ views.

This of course ties back in perfectly with what Candidate Obama said on the campaign trail. We no know exactly what he meant when he said, "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religious-specific, values." What he meant was that religious specific language and teaching would not be tolerated in a Democracy.

Thus, I was right earlier about his new language just being a new attempt to keep religion out of politics. I did fail to see that he wants to keep religion out of everything. Now I know.