...at least for the forseeable future.

I had a two-page list of topics I wanted to talk about, but what I didn't anticipate was a radical shift in my priorities happening in a short amount of time.  And, there is just too much out there I need to listen to and absorb for me to kid myself that I need to be talking.  Too much to learn, to presume to teach.

Thanks for checking in on this short-lived trifle.  Go hug your kids, and peace be with you.

-H.

For quite awhile, I have thought that one could classify people as one of three types.

The first type live and work under the conviction that for a free society to function, each person must govern himself.  They do so with self-restraint, and raise their children to do likewise.

The second type, for whatever reason, cannot or will not govern themselves, are a constant danger to others, and are constantly impinging on their liberty.

The first type believe that one of the few legitimate roles of government is to restrain the predations of the second type upon the first.  The first would have an easier time dealing with the second but for the presence of a third.

This third type may or may not govern themselves but can always be identified by a feverish desire to govern others.  Often they belong to a kind of "governing class," and a lack of belief in either God or kings does not preclude their operating as if by divine right.  Unfortunately, they act out their desires to govern others with a baffling indifference to restraining the second type of person and a perverse interest in directing the lives of the first type, all the while exempting themselves from the strictures they impose on both.

The first type can handle the second type, but God save us all from the third.

Well.

Now that the Senate Democrats have suddenly decided that our servicemen and women are worthy of more than thinly-veiled contempt, and that, previous bleatings aside, it is now okay to call someone unpatriotic, I'm waiting for Senators Reid and Harkin to condemn the utterers of these (in)famous lines.  I'll even let them take these quotes in their full context, rather than taking out of context two words and purposefully lying about their meaning:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation [our troops] are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win" -- Michael Moore

Maybe Sen. Harkin (an authority on phony war heros) can work in some snide remark here, like "Well, I don’t know. Maybe he was just high on his Twinkies or pork rinds again. I don’t know whether he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know. But that shouldn’t be an excuse."

Well, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. One Marine was killed and the Marines just said we’re going to take care – we don’t know who the enemy is, the pressure was too much on them, so they went into houses and they actually killed civilians."  -- Rep. John Murtha

Can we get Oliver Stone in here to confirm this?  By the way, I think Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt is still awaiting Murtha's apology.

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."  -- Sen. John Kerry

apparently getting his information straight from Jesse MacBeth.

"Education -- if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well," said Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat. "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."  --  Sen. John Kerry

Well, at least "stupid" is a step up from "war criminals."

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings."  Sen. Dick Durbin

alluding to the death camps at Abu Ghraib and the Killing Fields of Guantanamo Bay.

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."  --  Sen. Barack Obama

the Audacity of Ignorance

“I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,’’   -- Sen. Hillary Clinton
 
borrowing a term from literary criticism to call General Petraeus a liar

"General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"  --  MoveOn.org

Get it?  "Petraeus" and "Betray Us" rhyme.  Really - look closely.

I'm no parliamentarian, so someone help me out here - is there a Senate procedure to censure oneself?:

"this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday"  --  Sen. Harry Reid (prior to the Petraeus report)

I'm calling in sick to work today.  I'll be watching C-SPAN with a bowl of popcorn, in anticipation.  I'll be careful with that popcorn, though.  There's enough hypocrisy and mock outrage in the hallowed Senate chambers right now to choke a rhinoceros.

I rejoice whenever I see a real contribution to the dialogue on race, by sincere, thoughtful and reasonable people, unsaddled with prejudice, constipated thinking and mindless name-calling.

Which is why I had to smile as I read the latest post on THE BLACKTYGRRR EXPRESS.

Regarding the Holocaust, brought back to the forefront of our attention this week -

To the survivors and their children, who with unsurpassed eloquence continue to plead with us to remember -

I pledge that so long as I live and have voice or pen, and so long as my descendants keep faith with me, the world shall not forget.

Opinions on the President Armageddonijad (sp?) Celebrity Roast at Columbia University today are like, well, you know, and everyone's got one.  I wanted to touch on a couple of things that I haven't seen addressed yet.  I'm in a snippy mood right now and will bend some of my own rules here and be as uncivil as you'll ever see me.

A lot of people named Tad and Buffy are high-fiving each other today about the "tough questions" asked of this Achmyachingheadijad character.  And what did they expect to get from these tough questions?  Forthrighness?  Honest answers?  Something other than theater of the absurd?

Actions speak louder than words, and this butcher's actions over the last 30 years have spoken volumes.  Did they really think we'd glean any new insights from a speech?  Actually, come to think of it, he did mention that Iran has no homosexuals (to loud guffaws from the audience) and I was not aware of that little nugget of information.  (But were you to ask me "Do you think Iran has any homosexuals?" and had I given it any thought, my answer probably would have been "No.  No I don't.  I imagine the ones who haven't been killed are probably hoping they don't get outed in the gossip pages of the Tehran Times.")

Really, all I need to know is that this man has the blood of thousands of Americans on his hands.  The young handsome man I saw at the grocery store with his wife and a Purple Heart license plate but no right arm?  Quite possibly courtesy of one of Ahmawhatever's ingenious little I.E.D.s.  Yep, all I really need to know.  Forgive me for jumping to any hasty conclusions about him.

For those who second Ahmadinnerjacket's finger wagging on the "need to be open to scientific questioning of events", including the Holocaust (scientific rigor being a hallmark of Holocaust denyers):  I have news for you.  The scientific questioning of events happened a long time ago, was very thorough, and the verdict was in, 62 years ago.  The evidence was so beyond what a person in the 1940's could wrap their mind around that General Eisenhower was afraid that nobody would believe it, would believe that anything that horrible and bestial could have been perpetrated by humans against humans.

See, Ike had your number.  He foresaw the Holocaust denyers, and so made sure that as many soldiers, officers, politicians, journalists and German townsfolk as possible viewed the sickening physical evidence firsthand, and gathered a mountain of horrifying and heartbreaking photographic and physical evidence along the way.  This before Photoshop was invented.  The mounds of dead bodies and living skeletons gave mute testimony.  The large number of Jews today without parents or grandparents or great-grandparents does, too.  Ahmedinejad is too late.  The questions were asked and answered before he was even spawned.

Finally, I hope this guy doesn't use nukes to force anyone to lower the Big Fist on him.  I don't want another war, especially one that self-loathing Americans do their best to sabotage, and I'd like to see the university students of Iran have a chance to show American university students (and presidents) what backbone is and what it is to stand up to evil instead of giving it a microphone and a catered luncheon.

Take care.

This is a continuation of a conversation elsewhere on Townhall that rapidly outgrew the column that it was attached to (Jena Jigsaw by Harry R. Jackson, Jr., 9/24/07)

The poster in question is hostile to Christianity, and as such people often do, threw out some Bible passages that they have a problem with to "prove" the Bible is a fairy tale.

Now, a lot of things spring directly to mind.  First, it is always disingenuous (and often downright humorous) for a person who doesn't believe in the Bible to try to use pieces of it, without any context or understanding, as a club over the heads of Christians (or for that matter, Jews, the studious of whom have probably forgotten more of the Bible before their Bar or Bat Mitzvahs then the skeptic will ever learn in his lifetime).

Second, Christians (I can't speak for any other) know that we need to understand the whole counsel of God. To use scripture to interpret scripture, the clearer passages to interpret the harder ones.  You can't fully understand the New Testament unless you understand the Old and (though my Jewish friends would disagree) the OT truly comes alive when you understand the NT.  You don't "cherry pick" verses to support a position (although, ironically, this is something the poster accused all Christians of doing).

Third, spiritual things are spiritually discerned.  You cannot approach the Bible in hostility and hope to understand it.  In fact, you cannot understand the Bible without the aid of the Holy Spirit, who inspired its human authors.

So, I'm going to try to answer the post.  This would be a good time to state that I am the least of all Biblical scholars and confess that my Bible study too often is pre-empted by far less worthy pursuits.  Nonetheless, Peter tells us to always be ready to give a reason for our faith.  So here is the post with my comments added.



The Bible on Slavery

Not exactly, as we will see.
 

A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

No, not about slavery.  A cursory reading of the whole passage will make it obvious that this is not about slavery, but is Jesus using the illustration of slaves and masters to make a point to those who would be his disciples.  That is, if He, their master, will be hated and persecuted, then they cannot expect any different for themselves.

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time?  Blessed is the slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46) 

(It is hardly worth noting that some versions translate "slaves" as "servants" here).  Again, this is not about slavery.  Here, Jesus, speaking of events in the future, is using an illustration to teach his disciples.  He is telling them that they sould always be about the work of Christ in anticipation of His imminent return.

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1Tim. 6:1-5)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)

These passages definitely fall under "spiritually discerned," so I don't expect our intrepid poster to be satisfied by my or any other explanation.  He is trying, as many do, to show here that the Bible condones or even encourages slavery, but this passage isn't the Bible on slavery, it is the Bible on slaves.  Paul and Peter are speaking to newly-converted Christian slaves in particular, and could even be said to speaking to suffering and opressed Christians in general.  These slaves were new creatures in Christ, and as such, had a liberty that made their earthly chains powerless.  They now found themselves able to pity their masters who languished in spiritual bondage.  They now were in a unique and powerful position from which to cut these masters to the heart through their behavior and help them (and their families and their fellow slaves) come to faith in Christ.  They found that through the providence of God, they had actually been placed in a position to be used by Him to effect the salvation (and quite possibly the liberation from slavery) of many.  And they realized that the sufferings of their earthly bondage paled in comparison to the glories of being used of God thusly.  You may not see how this was possible, but they did.  Again, one would have to study the whole Bible, including Paul's other writings on suffering, to understand this.

Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers" (Gen 9:25)

The inclusion of this one is puzzling and kind of silly.  The curse came from Cannan's dad, a hung-over Noah, who was ticked at Canaan because Canaan saw him nekkid and covered him up, thereby passing judgment on his father's shame.  True, the curse was prophetic, but it's a stretch to say that this is an example of the Bible condoning slavery.

Slavery was a fact of life in Biblical times, and the Bible, being particular concerned about spiritual matters, pays particular attention to the spiritual state of the slave.  I've spoken about presuppositions, and if one of yours is that heaven is nothing but a fantasy and fairy tale, then I expect you to find a concern with a slaves spiritual condition callous and meaningless.  However, the faith of a slave wasn't only about the life to come - it was a salve for the horrors of the present life. 

You won't understand the Bible unless you approach it in humility and a desire for it's Author to make it real to you.  And if you don't believe in its Author, then yes, it will be dead to you, just words on a page.  But to me, the Bible is living and active, and sharper than any double-edged sword...

Peace be with you.

Hi, all, and welcome to the first installment of Civil Discourse (aka Toward Understanding).  The purpose is to have a conversation that is as much about listening as talking.  It is to be as much about understanding your adversary's point of view as helping them understand yours.  I hope it is not a fools errand.

I was prompted to do this thing by the comments on Mike Gallagher's 9/20/07 column on the Jena incident (which I mostly agreed with but found somewhat flawed and lacking in pertinent facts).  The posts amounted to a dialogue on race relations.  There were a lot of insightful posts that genuinely tried to express the poster's point of view in a non-offensive way.  There were lots of responses by people who really wanted to understand other people's point of view.  Unfortunately, there were a lot of people who were only interested in making wholesale generalizations about and indictments of other races.  Who didn't seem interested in where the other person was coming from.  Different people had different understandings of the facts of the case, partly because the original column was short on facts, and so they were arguing from completely different sets of presuppositions.  Even some of the reasonable posters drifted into it and you could see "battle fatigue" creeping into their tone.  There was also some genuine ugliness there, too, by people who aren't grown up enough to engage in civil discourse.  In the end, with a few exceptions, it degenerated into a gridlock something like this:

"You're just a racist"

"No, YOU'RE a racist."

Sometimes there would be slight variations on the theme:

"YOU'RE A SUPER-SIZED DOUBLE RACIST WITH SUGAR ON TOP!"

It was sad and depressing.

Cynics would say that that is the fate of any dialogue on race, or even any discussions between political adversaries and it's tempting to believe it.  But I don't believe it, and I decided that if it is true, it won't be because I didn't do anything about it.  Hence this blog.

So here's how it will go, if enough people are interested to get this thing off the ground:

This blog is a benevolent constitutional monarchy.  That is, I make the rules, and if you violate them or what a reasonable person would consider common decency, they you'll be hitting the dusty trail.  I know this introduces some subjectivity at the beginning, but that's the way it's gotta be.  I'm the arbiter.  I'm an arbiter with my own presuppositions and prejudices, but I strive to recognize them and to be fair.  And if I err, I invite you to call me on it, and I will call people on theirs, even ones who agree with me.  I will be part of the discussion and will also be an annoying presence hovering over it in an attempt to guide it.

The purpose in participating should be more than just stating an opinion; it should be an attempt to give as much information as possible as to why you feel as you do, and what has led you to your conclusion.  And it should be as much about listening as talking.

Try to state as many of the facts of the issue as you can, so we can identify where our presuppositions lie.  If we can agree on the hard facts of an issue, we'll have a much more productive dialog.

At times, I will try to sum up points that have been agreed on and ones still in contention as a sort of "thread maintenance" and ask the participants if they think I'm on the right track, or barking up the wrong tree.

Here is my one written rule:  No name-calling or ad hominem attacks, period, whether against fellow posters or public figures.  No matter how mild or seemingly innocuous.  Rather than try to draw a line between what is acceptable and not acceptable, I'm just banning it all.  

I'll give you from zero to 3 strikes.  Depending on how egregious the offense, I may remove your comment or I may ban you for a time or forever.  If it seems arbitrary, well, it's my blog.
We'll see how it works.

Some other guidelines:

This is very important for this here thing to work.  If someone is obviously a troll, or a shill or doing some Moveon.org initiation rite or being nihilistic or just trying to hijack a discussion by sowing discord, then IGNORE THEM.  I repeat, IGNORE them.  Don't give them what they want.  The best answer to give them is a deafening silence, or at least the sound of a lone cricket chirping in the back of the auditorium.  If their contribution is beyond the pale, don't worry, I will use my dictatorial powers to remove their post.  So IGNORE them.

If you have a problem with what someone says, ask for clarification and really try to understand their answer.  Try to remember that a lifetime of inputs and experiences shapes who we are and what we think.  Try to remember that someone who was raised by wolves won't have the best table manners, and try to make some allowances for it.

Please, don't bother regugitating someone else's opinion or talking points.  We want to know why you think what you do, not what your favorite columnist thinks.

Try to keep in mind what unites us and what we have in common as human beings and work from there.

Recognize that there isn't much point in arguing details with someone who has a different world view and presuppositions.

If an exchange between you and someone else is going nowhere, recognize there may be a time to simply agree to disagree.

To the more, ahem, robustly outspoken among us, I'm sorry if this all seems too touchy-feely for you, too milquetoast and mamby-pamby.  I'm just trying to come up with something that works and is sustainable.  I'm not saying there is no place for passion or emotion, but don't let it detract from the purpose of the discussion.  You have to be able to reign it in and govern your emotions.  There are some favorite bloggers and posters of mine on Townhall who wouldn't make it under these rules.  I hope they'll try to make some allowances to live within them so we can benefit from their input.

I'm not trying to stifle free speech, but if you can't make a cogent argument within the framework laid out here, then you don't belong in a civil discourse and there are other forums where you'll fit in better.

When I see thoughtful, civil and insightful posts elsewhere on Townhall, I invite them to be a regular presence here, a regular contributor.  I hope that goes well, too.

I should be posting once a week on Sunday.  We'll see how it goes.  This is my first blog and I do have a full-time job, along with a wife and two young children.

Got suggestions or constructive criticsm?  You've got my e-mail address, lay 'em on me.

This thing will either go or die on the vine.  We'll see.