Category: Uncategorized

TPS writes: Brett Favre’s stunning preformance against the Raiders brought me to tears over the loving-kindness that the Triune God bestows upon his creatures. “What is man that you are mindful of him?”

Then again, Dr. Z of SI said: “What I think is that we saw a once-in-a-lifetime performance Monday night, not only by Favre, but also by his receivers, who were catching everything deep, no matter what kind of adjustment they had to make. You seldom see a team come together like this and rally round one player in such dramatic fashion.”

God cares about sparrows, so I suppose it’s within the realm of possibility that he cares about football games. I have to say, I quite like the idea of an all-powerful deity who would take an interest in such things, especially one who might not be able to resist helping out a grieving quarterback. You don’t think that would be right? Hey, come on, they were playing the Raiders.

We hates the Raidess.

I completely disagree with the notion that Brett Favre is somehow “dishonoring” his father by playing a football game. Indeed, his performance suggests precisely the opposite to me. Not only did he not dishonor his former high-school coach, he honored him before the nation. We all knew for whom he was playing, and he came through in spades. I couldn’t help cheering for Brett, even if one of his vintage 4-INT games would have served my Vikings much better.

I’m with the WND emailers on this one. The more I read of Boteach, the less I like his writing He seems to be more interested in celebrities and telling other people what to do than writing anything of substance. I see a lot of Kobe columns in his future. How boring.

Walter Williams raises some excellent points about the Constitutionality of secession, and the unlikelihood that such exercising such a right would be permitted. I only wonder what the Federal excuse for an invasion would be. I expect that all of those who still believe that the Civil War was primarily about slavery – all the repeated declarations about preserving the Union to the contrary notwithstanding – would probably swallow whatever nonsense was given out as the official reason.

Why is it that the right to self-determination is something worth fighting for in foreign lands, and something that must be fought against in our own? If slavery trumps a right to self-determination, why are we not invading the Sudan right now, not to mention Eastern Europe? I often wonder if those who mindlessly repeat what little they remember of fifth-grade history ever stop to think about the logical implications of what they are saying.

Abraham Lincoln said the Civil War was not about slavery. Jefferson Davis said the Second (failed) American Revolution was not about slavery. Robert E. Lee didn’t even own slaves – what on Earth was he fighting so brilliantly for? If the principles on both sides of the Civil War didn’t believe it had anything to do with slavery, why do you? And if secession was treason, why was no Confederate ever tried for it, much less found guilty? Perhaps a second war of States Rights will one day convince the doubters.

I am, like most Americans, opposed to slavery. But I do not believe in throwing out the Constitution and using the evil of totalitarian oppression to end other evils. If there is an evil worth fighting a war to stop, it is the Holocaust of the Innocent. By the slavery theorist’s logic, we should impose a Federal ban on abortion, then invade any states that refuse to honor the ban. If the slavery theory is correct and the Civil War was right, then there is no reason why we should not resort to the same extreme measures to end what is surely a far worse evil.

JD writes: I can tell that you are a baptist because your ravings about “your” view of the world and its similarities to Tolkiens writings are waaay off to the religious right. To compare the United Nations to Sauron, and the nations of France, Germany, Russia and, China to the Nazgul, is just ridiculous. I somewhat agree to your comparison between orcs and islamic extremists because of their violent natures. But to label them as “monsters” or less than human, publicly no less, is un-christian. And what are baptists after all, but uber-christians. There are no christians but the baptists.

Why is “your” in quotes? Whose view do you expect me to have? Strange. Anyhow, this sort of historical ignorance is depressing, as people used to say the same sort of thing when they would insist that the European Economic Community was nothing more than a trade federation intended to boost the economies of Europe, and would NEVER prove to be the framework of a political entity, much less a totalitarian one. Of course, I don’t hear that argument anymore now that the European Commission is giving orders to the once-sovereign English Parliament and entire nations are forced to vote and re-vote until they finally produce the acceptable response.

At what point will JD and others begin to understand that the UN is a great threat to humanity, perhaps even the greatest it will ever face? Once it usurps the laws of the USA? Once it has taxing power and an army? When it orders the confiscation of all private firearms? No, as usual, the threat will not be recognized by the Great Fat and Happy until it is too late and the enemy is at their throats. This is not theoretical; Kofi Annan has been stumping hard for the global UN tax as proposed by Paul Tobin, and the EU already has what could be used as the nucleus of the blue-helmeted horde. Furthermore, there is already precedent for American soldiers being forced against their will to serve under UN colors as in the Michael New court martial. I have no doubt at all that I will be proved correct on this matter, and I can tell you now that I will take absolutely no joy in being right.

As to orcs… it’s called metaphor, JD. Deal with it. I never wrote anything about monsters or literal subhuman status…. Oh dear, it just occurred to me that perhaps he thinks the Sauron-UN comparison is ridiculous because there isn’t a great flaming eye on top of the building in New York City. For the love of all that’s good and holy, JD, get thee to a dictionary!

I am, as anyone who reads my column knows, a Southern Baptist. I have never once claimed, nor ever heard a fellow Baptist claim, that our understanding of Christianity is the only correct one. To believe with your heart and confess with your tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord is the only standard to which I subscribe, and while I can judge the latter, none but God can judge the former. Tonight, as is my custom, I will take great joy in attending midnight mass with my Christian brothers and sisters who happen to be Catholic, and together we will celebrate the birth of Our Lord.

While I appreciate your vigor and enthusiasm for the exceptional performance of the female members of this pool, especially Michelle my respected friend and co-worker, I find your e-mail demeaning and harassing, This is exactly the type of behavior that spawned the Salem Witch Trials, the Sacco and Vanzetti debacle, and the Wendy’s “Where’s the Beef” advertising campaign. Treating men as if they have no feelings or emotions relegates them to couch-sitting, beer guzzling, sports-watching, poor-fantasy-football-picking oafs. And while it may be completely and utterly applicable here, it doesn’t matter. This is America. The fact that the men in this pool are poorer at picking football game outcomes does not make the women better. It clearly makes the men victims. In this country, our utter lack of skill and applied talent does not make us less talented, it makes us worthy of special consideration and legal protection. I propose some sort of Fantasy Football Title IX treatment. I propose that if 50% of the top 5 winners (yeah, I know its 2.5 people, but some of the guys in the pool aren’t that tall) are not men than no-one gets to participate in this league. At the very least, we should eliminate some of the women who are in the league to make sure men have an equal chance. Anything else would be ridiculous, and to reject my idea would make one a sexist pig.

The WB is legendary in our fantasy football league for his insane approach to evaluating football talent – winner of the worst #1 pick ever award – and he’s in third place in a 30+ man (and woman) NFL pool. No wonder the women are winning.

The inimitable Fred Reed writes: The lobotomy box is all ads, with a sprinkle of stupid shows for people with the IQ of an avocado. Yes, I’ve heard the sheepish shuck-and-jive toe-dance about “But Fred, there are SOME good things – the History Channel and Discovery.” Yeah: Sharks, Nazis, and pyramids. The absolute minimum necessary so that people who can’t be alone with themselves will gawp at singing deodorant applicators.

I’m with Fred on this. I’d much rather read a book, play a game, surf or even write than watch TV – NFL excluded.

A nice irony is this: Whereas Christianity (and Judaism) can give atheists a dignified place within their own theory of religious liberty, it seems quite difficult for atheists such as Dawkins to assign religious people any place in their own theory other than the loony bin. For Jews and Christians, freedom is so dear to the Creator that He allows free human beings to turn away from him, to reject the granting even of His existence, and to scorn Him and His works. In their refusal of His friendship, He vindicates His love of liberty. Thus, atheists too give witness to His glory.

By contrast, Dawkins in his apoplexy can find no place for believing Jews and Christians except delusion. He thinks of atheism as a place of honor and of religion as a disease; teaching of the latter, a crime; teaching of the former, a way of light, knowledge, and truth.

There is a further irony. Time and again in history, reason has proved to be inadequate to its own defense. Most people most of the time live by passion, sentiment, custom, emotion — many such guides influence them — but few live purely by reason. Even famous philosophers of very high scientific standards have insisted that they did not choose their wives or guide their loves by scientific reason. Reason is but a thin sliver to build a civilization upon.

And the situation is far worse than that. The scientist qua scientist typically writes that the universe was formed by chance. At this starting point, then, there is a fundamental irrationality at the heart of science. There is a superstructure of towering reasonings, but based upon an absurdity — in the strict sense, an utter absence of discernible reason, a surd at the root of the matter. The thorough cultivation of science alone as a philosophy of life, therefore, normally ends as Nietzsche sadly announced, that, in our civilization, it already had: in nihilism.– Michael Novak, NRO

Novak pinpoints the base irrationality of atheism, the foundation upon which others are thereby constructed. To pretend that reason rules where it manifestly does not, to fly under a moral flag that is not – and in most cases cannot be – reached by reason, these are mere quotidian irrationalities. Perhaps some dim awareness of this self-delusion accounts for the rage of so many atheists when confronted by the ironic reality of their lives. They say they laugh, even as their foam-flecked lips spew curses.

It does not bother me in the least that many call me a fool or an idiot for my faith. But then, I believe in the biggest absurdity of all; that an all-powerful Creator God would deign to become Man, that He might save His creation from itself. Embrace the rational nihilism of the Void if you choose, as for me, like the Marshwiggle, I will hold to the fairy tale.

The plaintiff’s bar wants to keep religious people off the jury, because they believe in personal responsibility. Won’t they be in for a surprise, when those legions of highly ethical atheists pop up and throw their nefarious plans to win massive damage awards into disarray.

Somehow, this reminds me of how the courts go into panic mode whenever anyone within a five-mile radius of the courtroom utters the words “jury nullification”.

Isn’t it interesting how the most corrupt institutions in the USA – the courts and Wall Street – always rely on abstract theoretical arguments to justify their existence, while daily behaving in a manner that almost precisely contradicts their justifications.

LV points out: “The Ents were really dissed, being presented as whiney sniveling cowardly appeasers, where in the book, they were mightily disturbed, but merely slow to anger and action. Not being hasty is not being French.”

It’s true, having them get “tricked” by Merry was rather lame, but I don’t think Jackson had the time to show their slow rise to anger. I think LV is being too harsh, here. Jackson kept the essence of their nature intact, and furthermore, I submit that any clumsiness here must be forgiven by the awesome and overpowering attack on Isengard. He really surpassed my expectations there.

To be honest, I never much liked the Ents anyhow. I’m definitely a Rohan guy. Space Bunny is an Aragorn fan, and I understand the teenyboppers quite like Legolas, but I think that one starry-eyed female writer is correct in saying that Eomer is unfairly overlooked. After Faramir, he was my second favorite character in the books; unlike Faramir, the films did him justice.

As much as I like Cate Blanchett as an actress, I wasn’t terribly fond of her as Galadrial. She was adequate, but she wasn’t as ethereal and overpoweringly beautiful as my mind’s eye pictured. I can’t think of an actress I would have preferred, though. I also thought it was interesting how the elven armor was definitely influenced by the Ulthuan High Elves of Warhammer. The process goes full circle.

RS asks: Would you consider Tolkien to have been a Christian?

I really dislike answering this sort of question. It does not fall to me, or any other man, to judge another man’s soul. However, we can certainly say that JRR Tolkien was a devout Catholic, considered himself to be a Christian, was instrumental in leading CS Lewis to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, and wrote a literary masterpiece that is rife with Christian references, analogies and metaphor.

In other words, if he was not a Christian, I don’t know who is. And if we judge Tolkien by his fruits, as we are instructed, there can be very little doubt as to the nature of the tree. In other words, yes.

By this same metric, I very much doubt that Adolf Hitler was a Christian, his sometime public protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. His blasphemous attempts to usurp the role of Jesus Christ would alone appear to rule him out as an antichrist, not to mention the small matter of his massive body count and notorious hatred for God’s Chosen. But the truth is, we do not know the truth of what was in either man’s heart at the end.

It is possible to imagine that Hitler repented of his sins in the Berlin bunker. In near-total ignorance of his life, it is possible to imagine that Tolkien secretly abjured Jesus Christ and embraced Belial. But both possibilities, especially the latter, are so uncharacteristic of what we know as to be monstrously absurd, in my opinion, and not worth the breath required to discuss them. For my part, I hope to one day leave as bold a Christian testimony behind as did Mr. Tolkien.