If you have ever wondered why Border Collies make bad seeing eye dogs.......

Click here

Andrew Sullivan shares his "wisdom" on marriage, yet again (sigh)

Here's the link

AND HERE'S THE QUOTE
It was a little trippy last night at the 92d Street Y. Sitting with an old friend, Dan Savage, and a seventies icon, Erica Jong, talking about sex in front of a few hundred Upper East Side denizens is not something you do every day. I said the f-word first, I'm happy to say, and after that, it was all downhill. For me the interesting point came when Dan and I agreed that moderate hypocrisy - especially in marriages - is often the best policy. Momogamy is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don't mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable. You could see Jong bridle at the thought of such dishonesty. But I think the post-seventies generation - those of us who grew up while our parents were having a sexual revolution - both appreciate the gains for sexual and emotional freedom, while being a little more aware of their potential hazards. An acceptance of mild hypocrisy as essential social and marital glue is not a revolutionary statement. It's a post-revolutionary one. As is, I'd say, my generation as a whole.

Well, there are a few of things that ought to be said. First, he is correct that his is not a "revolutionary" position. Indeed, it is conventional in our culture. So conventional is it that it could pass on the "Upper East Side" as quite hip, not to be explored or questioned.

This leads to the second thing that must be said. Perhaps it is difficult for men to be monogamous. But, one could well ask, why. I think it boils down to one pitiful issue. Western men are incredibly insecure. Living in a world that neither demands greatness from men nor rewards real heroism, men become lost in a pathetic fantasy of sexual exploits to make them feel that they are truly masculine.

The other thing that plays into male "wandering" (even if it is seldom or one-time) is the profound loss of intimacy that our sex-obsessed culture has bequeathed us. When sex was unfettered -- medically first and the legally in Roe v. Wade -- from the inherent possibility of children and responsibility for the mother of one's progeny, the necessary prerequisite for seriousness (not somberness) about sexuality and its pleasures was lost. With the loss of seriousness (that is evidenced in some men) came a loss of respect for women and with that loss the foundation for real intimacy was lost. And women did not help their cause by seeking to immulate the worst features of maleness.

I recall G. K. Chesterton's quip about his lack of temptation to other women. Paraphased he said, I was never tempted by the thought of having other women, because the reality of really having one was more than I ever dreamed of.

One can't help but wonder what a secure man seeking greatness and truly valuing and respecting the woman who respected him in return and who engaged life together seriously might do to Sullivan's paradigm. Maybe in his world, however, seriousness and intimacy are quaint and disposable commodities.

A Great article on Taking God's Name in Vain

An old classmate, Lawson Stone, who teaches at Asbury Theological Seminary, has written a very good article on the meaning of the 3rd commandment.

Find it HERE

Congress and the President

I've been thinking about this latest spat between the legislative branch and the executive branch over the recent search of Congressman Jefferson's offices. READ HERE

Of course, at stake is the separation of powers that the constitution establishes. I don't claim to know how to sort out all the legal and constitutional questions here. But, I have been considering the genius of the framers of the constitution. Perhaps they broke up the governance of the country into three separate but equal branches of government not merely to avoid the threat of tyranny, but to insure a continual gridlock.

Tom Jefferson, Jim Madison, Benny Franklin and the gang intuited that separate but equal branches of government would constantly covet the powers of the other branches and would, as well, resent the limits that the existence of the others imposed on them. That would mean that the government would spend a great deal of time fighting with itself. So, the government would not have time to hassle its citizens. The only time that such in-fighting would cease would be in moments of dire national emergency or national interest. Then the limited government would have to work together. I think that the proponents of self-rule and personal liberty would have liked the present conflict.

The only down side -- that our framers did not have to face -- is the modern day reality of a federal income tax. A federal government that takes our money by force and then wastes it really rubs us the wrong way. That is an important, but separate issue. But, lets not be to hasty to hope that the politicians in D.C. get along. Let them fight. It is good for freedom.

The Way It Should Be, Right?

The New York Times has THIS article about the new strategy that coastal states have for dealing with the threat to life and limb that hurricanes present.

As it turns out, the strategy boils down to this -- TAKE CARE OF YOU AND YOURS!

From the article:

This save-yourselves approach comes after government agencies were overwhelmed by pleas for help after last year's storms and strongly criticized as not responding swiftly or thoroughly enough to the public need. Now, officials have said repeatedly, only the elderly, the poor and the disabled should count on the government to help them escape a hurricane or endure its immediate aftermath.

Mississippi, where more than 200 residents died in Hurricane Katrina, unrolled a "Stay Alert. Stay Alive" hurricane awareness campaign in April. State officials told residents what to pack in a "go-kit" for evacuating (flashlight, radio, nonelectric can opener) and, like many others, commanded them to stockpile at least three days' worth of water and food.

Horry County, S.C., home to Myrtle Beach, held a hurricane exposition last month and is giving similar presentations at Kiwanis clubs and homeowners associations.

"The big shortfall is complacency with the community," said Randall Webster, director of Horry County Emergency Management. "Our main theme is, take interest as an individual and make preparations."

That is the way it should be, if you ask me. The responsibility of every healthy citizen, especially Christian citizens who claim to be concerned for the weak and sick, is to be ready to haul you and all those for whom you are responsible out of harms way. IF all the able-bodied persons plan now for this, then the precious and precarious resources of the federal government can be concentrated on the needy. To fail to plan ahead is not simply complacency it is a lack of caring about ones neighbors.

Dr. Kevorkian has second thoughts about his past

Here's the story

He was called Dr. Death by many. NOw he thinks his decisions to act unlawfully were wrong, not just legally, but strategically. He does not seem to have second thoughts about so-called "death with dignity."

He has, himself, been told that he has about a year to live, due to liver failure. One wonders if coming face-to-face with his own mortality might give him pause about the act of ending others' lives. At least, one hopes so.

Dr. Kevorkian has second thoughts about his past

Where is Tom Jones When You Need Him!

The Welsh crooner, Tom Jones, had a big hit back in the "ancient days" of the 1970's -- "She's a Lady" was its title. Well, a recent study has found that traditional lady-like behavior is on the wane in the case of teenage girls. Here's a bit of the article that reports it.

Professor Colin Pritchard, who led the research, said: 'Girls now significantly smoke and binge-drink more than boys. They truant, steal and fight at similar rates, and start under-age sex earlier than boys.'

He said binge-drinking, which was admitted by nearly a third of girls in their early teenage years, drove other anti-social behaviour such as stealing, fighting, taking drugs and engaging in risky sex.

'There is an element of following role models set by the media,' he said 'We can look back to the Spice Girls where girls were set an example in which aggressive behaviour was considered praiseworthy.

'It is also the case that girls are expected to behave differently today than they were in the past, and that has affected the of boys too.'

The study comparison found that the number of boys admitting to smoking has nearly halved to just over a quarter, while the number of girls who smoke has risen to nearly half. The number of girls who admit having smoked cannabis has gone up nearly fourfold, to one in five.

(READ MORE)

Of course, there are those who will celebrate this as liberation for young women. But, it is a sad commentary about the values of those who see it as such. For anyone to argue that copying behavior that was (and still is by many feminists) considered to be the worst behavior of young men is liberating for young women is, to my mind, silly if it weren't so serious.

For the last 40 years certain segments of the American intelligencia have sought to make boys less "boyish. It seems as though the results are that girls have become more "boyish."

Anyone who thinks that a young woman who smokes and drinks to excess and makes herself available to a variety of young men (or womesn) sexually will be treated with respect is, in the long run, out of touch with reality.

When I was a kid there was a rhyme that went like this:

What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice and everything nice

What are little boys made of? Snakes and snails and puppy dog tails.

Well, not anymore. More's the pity for the girls.

The Da Vinci Code and the Church. . . .

Well, much is made about the release of the movie The Da Vinci Code. A lot of film critics don't like it as a movie. And a whole cottage industry debunking it has been established. Just go to your local bookstore.

Serious scholars have debunked it. Take N.T Wright for example.

My take on it is that the Da Vinci Code is just the latest eruption of gnosticism that has always plagued the orthodox faith. In an article on the "Code" I wrote for a print journal, I argue for the comparison between the kind of religious faith called forth by believers in the Da Vinci Code outlook and early gnosticism.

Just as Gnosticism presented a serious confrontation to the early Christian witness, The Da Vinci Code evinces one side of a cultural continental divide that exists in current day American and European spiritually. On the one hand there is the historic claim of Christianity, which insists that the answers and hopes of our lives are found in the reality of the transcendent God who has acted in history through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Christ’s virgin conception, his sacrificial death, and his resurrection are central to God’s grace at work to give redeem his fallen creation. Hence, the answers to life’s most pressing and critical questions are not found within ourselves, but are located in the will and mind of our Creator-Redeemer God. So, our hope is to look outside ourselves. This search is carried out in the context of a community of repentant and seeking disciples.

But the other slope of the divide implies an entirely different spiritual and theological landscape. In this other and competing perspective – the new Gnosticism – the secret of ‘salvation’ and fulfillment is found by looking within oneself for divine illumination and wisdom. Tragically, this move is profoundly dehumanizing, because it cuts us off from the essentially communal nature that we as humans are made for. The central spiritual and moral imperative is to be true to what you find within yourself and to whom you really are. However, I do not need anyone else to be true to the inner subjectivity of my own illumination, nor do you. Seeking to find meaning, this orientation, which The Da Vinci Code appeals to, removes me from the community of longing and discovery for which humans are made.

And yet, honesty demands that we not be shocked that many are drawn to this kind of ‘Christianity.’ In many instances, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ does not have an admirable track record of living its radical faith as a community of disciples longing for God. Evangelical Christians, for instance, have tended to be too individualistic and subjective about faith. Hence, we know very little about the historical doctrines of the Faith. We have failed at times to worship the Jesus who is a historic figure – God Incarnate. In so doing we have forgotten that the Church’s historic affirmation, “Jesus is Lord,” was a claim that Caesar was not Lord. Jesus was and is a claim to our total allegiance, but the Church has often relegated him to the role of one who just provides us forgiveness for our sins and a promise of heaven. As well, and tragically, the world has not seen vibrant Christianity that changes the way disciples live on a day to day basis. In the absence of a true witness people are prey for all kinds of false substitutes, especially those that flatter our egos about how special we are deep down inside. And theories such as Brown’s that put sex up front and central to the life of the author of Christianity appeal to the sex-obsessed culture of contemporary America.

How shall people know that there is a real alternative to the self-actualization Gnosticism of our overly eroticized society? The Da Vinci Code when it comes out in theatres will certainly require of faithful Christians that we bear witness to its falsehood. In bearing such a witness we must, as well, be ready to defend the historic nature of the four Gospels and the traditional Christian faith. But that will not be enough. Even more, the Church must be ready to bear witness to the Truth. This will mean repentance over the false versions of Jesus that we have worshipped and that we have presented to the world. We must be ready to follow his Lordship and orient all of our lives around his way. Perhaps then the truth of the Gospel will be believable again to a non-Christian world. Like our ancient fathers and mothers in the faith, we must live for Jesus with all that we are. They died in persecution for their faith, gladly in many instances, because they first and foremost the LIVED for Christ each moment. Their witness ultimately won an empire. Our moment calls us to live for him as they did.

Gospel and Immigration?

Here is a very good article on the immigration question and how a Christian conservative might need to think about it.

Here's a taste

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked the authority of Jesus himself to oppose a Republican-sponsored House resolution aimed at cracking down on those who aid and abet the smuggling of aliens across the Mexican border. “It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably Jesus himself,” Mrs. Clinton claimed Read more