Law on Blog 



[ Links ]
Covenant Media Foundation

[ Blogs That I Read ]
Rabbi Saul
The Blog According to John
Aaron's Baseball Blog
Whilin' Away the Hours
Dr. G's Blog
Le Sabot Post-Moderne Societas Christiana
Just Mark
Contra Tyrannus
View from Peniel
Doug's Blog
40 Bicycles
The Whirlwind Musings of a Reformed Catholic

"The Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." -- Psalm 19:7-8 (ESV) --

Tuesday, July 26, 2005



(taken from NASA website)

Sunday, July 24, 2005


Bye bye, Lance. Thanks for the ride.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005


Indeed, this is a question that I have wondered for quite awhile. I am not, and have never been a political liberal, but I know many people who were, and a few that still are. The reason why I ask this is because the rhetoric from the left has been so shrill and vile that it becomes easy why people don't like to be associated with liberals. I mean, when you have Paul Begala saying that Republicans want to kill his children, that they want to throw old people out in the street, etc; one has to wonder at the vat intellectual void that seems to dominate the liberal left.

This was n ot always the case. Let's not bash on liberals too much, first of all. For the most part, liberals advocate in general morally good ideas. For instance, they do believe that there should be some financial assistance for those who are not as well off as others. Liberals also believe that a good society should have a vested interested in the education of its children and that society should see to the well-being of its citizens. Likewise, some liberals believe that times do evolve, and that some changes in things are inevitable, and likewise, they do challenge the status quo.

For instance, I was watching an old episode of Designing Women a few nights ago. Now, the show has a liberal bent to it, considering the creators were friends of the Clintons (before the Presidency) and that the main character, Julia, is a strong feminist. Still, it is a very good and funny show even if there are a couple turn-off episodes. In the episode I saw, it dealt with women pastors. The girls went to the pastor's house for dinner to talk about the issue and the Scriptural support. Well, of course, this was not a big theological conference here, and the arguments from the pastor could have been a lot better (but I expect this from the writers). For instance, in response to Bernice's use of Galatians and Genesis, the pastor should have replied that there is a difference between equality and egalitarianism, and that the Bible clearly forbids egalitarianism, which was the position that Bernice was advocating.

Still, as the program went on, the reason this was brought up was not to challenge the church as sexist, but it was because another character who was going to the church, Charlene, wanted to be a pastor to preach the word of God. This was a genuine concern, and she was saddened that she eemed shut out from doing what she always wanted to do since she was a little girl watching thoe who did sermons. Now of course, this is a show, and the writers obviously have a view they want to advocate, so they did not have the pastor respond Biblically (which is, there are other functions within the church that would allow her to do this, just not as an elder. Again, equality does not equal egalitarianism.)

Now this isn't to draw out sympathy for women's pastors. However, the argument, at least here, came out of a genuine question. What if women wanted to preach the word? Could they at all? Were they forbidden? The debate occurred over a legitimate question and concern. That is not the case today, when liberals like Howard Dean and Paul Begala advocate a position, and if you don't agree, you're a bigot, racist, etc.

My sociology professor was abolutely ticked off by liberals in the spring, and he is a staunch liberal. Remember the brew-haha that happened at Harvard with the President there and his remarks about women in the cience and engineering fields and their small numbers. Well, hey, what a sexist! It upset so many people, they wanted his fired, they wanted to tar him, etc. Of course, there is a problem. It is a socielogical fact that women are less represented in science and math, and rather than claim sexism, maybe the feminist freakos could spend more energy and time figuring out how to recruit more women into these fields that cry about someone spouting off a sociological fact. I mean seriously, are you going to call me a racist because I say that blacks commit on the whole a disproportionate amount more crimes than whites? You want to challenge me on those figures, because every sociological study on crime has shown this to be true. Does that make me a racist? Sorry, but if you think that does, then you are simply naive and ignorant of the mot common ociological facts. Unfortunately, this seems to be the mindset of the liberals today, for the most part.

I hope the left can be recaptured by more intellects who respect arguments and thought and disdain insults and vile. Again, my sociology professor is a staunch liberal, yet when we chatted, he and I, a paleoconservative, found out that we agreed more often than not about certain situations and problems. Where we differed was the solution to those problems, and that's where we could debate.

I think there is common ground that liberals and conservatives hold as true, but there will always be debate. However, there really hasn't been debate lately with the left hijacked by elitist vile snobs who know insults rather than srgumentation. However, this is not to say that the conservatives are saints. Next time, I'll be asking whatever happened to conservatives, because they have gone bonkers too.

Friday, July 15, 2005


Little Green Footballs has linked to an article in a Dallas newspaper that is finally going to call a spade a spade. No longer will they (at least the editorial board) call those in Iraq insurgents. THey are terrorists. No true insurgent targets children whose sole crime was gathering around a U.S. soldier who was passing out candy as a gesture of good will.

Monday, July 11, 2005


Sometimes reading through blogs, I come accross some very interesting articles. In particular, I find it very interesting when some scholars treat other scholars like little children when they answer remarks and articles and those who allude to those scholars. It's sad because they were educated that this was an improper way of interacting with and arguing against other works. However, I can see why people act the way they do. When some doctrine or pet project is being attacked, sometimes we tend to act in a condescending tone, as if these remarks aren't even to be taken seriously. It's sad, and what is worse is when people are too blind and full of themselves that they can't even acknowledge criticism seriously. Sad, so sad.

This page is powered by Blogger.