Echoes in Eternity

Once again, more stories of disappearing freedoms are coming out of Europe. Last week in Germany, a Lutheran pastor was sentenced to one year in prison for comparing abortion to the Holocaust. Elsewhere in Europe, there was nearly a vote today (at the last minute it was canceled/postponed) by the Council of Europe to ban the teaching of intelligent design and fight any mention of it on the Continent.

The news media tend to live by Jesus' maxim to worry about one's own faults before bothering with others. However, in a slight modification of Christ's words, instead they anguish over the speck in this country's "eye" while mostly ignoring the huge "planks" in foreign countries. One such plank is mentioned here regarding the tens of thousands of South Koreans who were abducted and never seen or heard from again by North Korea during the Korean War. Many wives and thousands of children lost their spouse and/or parent(s) due to the evils of Communism.

On June 25, 1962, the 12th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War, Sung Kap Soon opened her diary and began to write.

"My dear husband, each night my pillow is soaked with tears of longing for you," the 38-year-old mother of three wrote. "Life goes on, but my body is torn to pieces by thoughts of you."

She noted in her diary that the country had marked the anniversary with a low-key government ceremony but little mention of the tens of thousands of South Korean civilians, including her husband, Ha Kyok Hong, who had been seized and taken away by North Korean troops.

On Monday, too, South Korea observed the war's 57th anniversary with scant comment on the fate of these largely forgotten victims of the war.

Fine, some people say, Communism was evil. However, they would point out, the most malignant forms of it are shadows of their former selves. Russia, while still struggling with democracy, is no longer ruled by a Communist party. North Korea, while still ruled by a lunatic, has begun to open up toward the outside world. Cuba is now ruled by a bunch of senior citizens who likely will all be dead within the next decade. And they would, for the most part, be correct. The dangers of Communism seem very much removed from our world today. However, as with everything (from pop cultural fads to worldviews), there is a cyclical nature that needs to be understood. Communism and all of its excesses as carried out by Stalin and Castro made it mostly a pariah among those who had lived through it or even saw its evils from afar, so that even people who would normally be quite sympathetic to the basic ideology of communism were scared off by how it had been applied. However, we now have an entire generation that only knows of communism from what they have read in history books. So, like the American clothing fashion of the 80's, socialism and communism are beginning to rise again.

A great example of this new boost in popularity is how many people in this country frequently give praise to the dictator president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Yet I've given examples before of the totalitarian communist methods that he employs. And once again, here is another article about his extreme views.

President Hugo Chavez urged soldiers on Sunday to prepare for a guerrilla-style war against the United States, saying that Washington is using psychological and economic warfare as part of an unconventional campaign aimed at derailing his government.

Dressed in olive green fatigues and a red beret, Chavez spoke inside Tiuna Fort—Venezuela's military nerve-center—before hundreds of uniformed soldiers standing alongside armored vehicles and tanks decorated with banners reading: "Fatherland, Socialism, or Death! We will triumph!"

"We must continue developing the resistance war, that's the anti- imperialist weapon. We must think and prepare for the resistance war everyday," said Chavez, who has repeatedly warned that American soldiers could invade Venezuela to seize control of the South American nation's immense oil reserves.

We better start taking this nutcase seriously. After all, who in their right mind would think that the U.S. would actually invade Venezuela? Venezuela!?!? Of course, if this narcissist continues on his path to significant military buildup and wanton destruction of his beautiful country, maybe we will end up in there.

When it comes to worldviews, they never die; they only take a break for a season or two.

Mark Steyn pointed out this little tidbit from Los Angeles...

The founder of an antiviolence group called No Guns pleaded not guilty Thursday to federal weapons charges.

Hector "Big Weasel" Marroquin is accused of selling an assault rifle, a machine gun, two pistols and two silencers to undercover federal agents last fall. He could face up to 50 years in prison if convicted.

Marroquin, 51, of Downey, is a onetime member of the 18th Street gang who founded No Guns in 1996. No Guns received $1.5 million from the city as a subcontractor on anti-gang efforts, but its contract was canceled last year.

Here is a great article detailing just how polluting ethanol production truly is. Basically, more pollution is created than avoided by switching to ethanol. Replace gasoline with the bigger "evil" of ethanol. Again, this is another example in the long line of proofs that the leftist agenda is about feeling good, not doing good.

Other examples?

Welfare
Universal Health Care Coverage
No Death Penalty
The ONE Campaign against Global Poverty (GASP, did I just say that?!?)
Almost all global warming solutions (nevermind that human-induced GW doesn't exist)

That's enough, you get the point. If anyone would like further explanation for any of these examples and how they are "feel good" issues but rarely do they have a positive effect, please ask.

This is a letter written by Bishop Thomas Tobin in response to an invitation he received to attend a Rudy Giuliani fundraiser.

I have no idea why I received an invitation to Giuliani’s fundraiser. I don’t know the mayor; I’ve never met him. I try to avoid partisan politics. Heck, I’m not even a Republican. But most of all, I would never support a candidate who supports legalized abortion.

Rudy’s public proclamations on abortion are pathetic and confusing. Even worse, they’re hypocritical.

Now, this is what we get from Rudy as he attempted to explain his ambiguous position on abortion in a speech at Houston Baptist College earlier this month: “Here are the two strong beliefs that I have, here are the two pillars of my thinking . . . One is, I believe abortion is wrong. I think it is morally wrong . . . The second pillar that guides my thinking . . . where [people of good faith] come to different conclusions about this, about something so very, very personal, I believe you have to respect their viewpoint. You give them a level of choice here . . . I’ve always believed both of these things.”

What? This drivel from the man who received high marks, and properly so, for his clear vision and personal courage in healing New York City, and by extension the nation, after the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11?

Rudy mentions the two pillars of his position. But you know what happens if you sit on a stool with two legs? Yep, it collapses. And so does Rudy’s position, and along with it his integrity and reputation.

Rudy’s explanation is a classic expression of the position on abortion we’ve heard from weak-kneed politicians so frequently in recent years:

“I’m personally opposed to but don’t want to impose my views on other people.” The incongruity of that position has been exposed many times now. As I’ve asked previously, would we let any politician get away with the same pathetic cop-out on other issues: “I’m personally opposed to . . . racial discrimination, sexual abuse, prostitution, drug abuse, polygamy, incest . . . but don’t want to impose my beliefs on others?”

Why is it that when I hear someone explaining this position, I think of the sad figure of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels, who personally found no guilt in Jesus, but for fear of the crowd, washed his hands of the whole affair and handed Jesus over to be crucified. I can just hear Pilate saying, “You know, I’m personally opposed to crucifixion but I don’t want to impose my belief on others.”

While I completely agree with the Bishop Tobin about never voting for a pro-abortion candidate, I am not sure what I will do if the choice in November 2008 is between Clinton and Giuliani. I have heard good arguments from the likes of Dr. Dobson and Nathanael Blake for not voting if such a situation arises. I've also heard Dennis Prager address this issue on his radio show during an interview with Giuliani this week. To summarize the primary pros and cons of voting for Giuliani rather than abstaining in the Presidential General Election next fall...

Pros:
- Not enabling Hillary Clinton (or whatever Democratic candidate he would face) to gain office
- Giuliani appears to completely understand the threat that radical Islam poses to this country and the world at large, something that dunderheads like John Edwards will never understand
- Giuliani will probably be as likely to nominate conservative judges as any of the other Republican frontrunners, while who knows what scary second comings of Ruthie Ginsburg a Clinton or Obama administration would drum up

Cons:
- Enabling the Republican party to ignore the social conservatives in the future by showing them proof that a pro-choice candidate is viable within the party
- Giuliani's personal life (three marriages, his family in tatters) doesn't bode well for the chances of him conducting himself in a "presidential manner"
- Giuliani's history of fighting against 2nd Amendment rights in NYC
- Giuliani might flip flop and nominate pro-choice candidates for our courts

Hopefully I won't have to make that decision next November.

Today is the 63rd anniversary of the Battle of Normandy. During the few days of that battle, approximately 50,000 Americans lost their lives fighting to end tyranny. Kinda puts the Iraq War into perspective. Read this account from Omaha Beach, the bloodiest landing on that day 63 years ago. 3000 soldiers were killed in just a few hours.

We must preach the coming of the Lord, and preach it somewhat more than we have done; because it is the driving power of the gospel. Too many have kept back these truths, and thus the bone has been taken out of the arm of the gospel. Its point has been broken; its edge has been blunted. The doctrine of judgment to come is the power by which men are to be aroused. There is another life; the Lord will come a second time; judgment will arrive; the wrath of God will be revealed. Where this is not preached, I am bold to say the gospel is not preached. It is absolutely necessary to the preaching of the gospel of Christ that men be warned as to what will happen if they continue in their sins. Ho, ho, sir surgeon, you are too delicate to tell the man that he is ill! You hope to heal the sick without their knowing it. You therefore flatter them; and what happens? They laugh at you; they dance upon their own graves. At last they die! Your delicacy is cruelty; your flatteries are poisons; you are a murderer. Shall we keep men in a fool's paradise? Shall we lull them into soft slumbers from which they will awake in hell? Are we to become helpers of their damnation by our smooth speeches? In the name of God we will not. It becomes every true minister of Christ to cry aloud and spare not, for God hath set a day in which he will "judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." As surely as Paul's gospel was true the judgment will come. Wherefore flee to Jesus this day, O sinners. O ye saints, come hide yourselves again beneath the crimson canopy of the atoning sacrifice, that you may be now ready to welcome your descending Lord and escort him to his judgment-seat. O my hearers, may God bless you, for Jesus' sake. Amen.

- Charles Spurgeon, July 12, 1885

Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens have wrapped up their 6-week debate on Christianity Today's website regarding Christianity and its positive or negative influence in the world. Hitchens is a very intelligent man and shrewd debater, but Wilson handily won their exchange. Hitchens was ultimately unable to explain from whence he gets his moral belief system and how that morality is good and, say, a pyschopath's is evil (rather than the two people just having different beliefs). This is the problem for all those atheists who, like Mr. Hitchens, believe in right and wrong actions (though not necessarily the same ones as you or I) yet are unwilling to ascribe their morality to a supernatural source. If a person's moral being is defined completely by himself, and if said morality is itself a product of humanity's cultural and physical evolution, who is to say that the cultural mores of today are any more viable than those of 1000 years ago or of those that may come in the future? And if that is the case, what makes our "Judeo-Christian" cultural standards any more authentic (or good) than those held by much of the Muslim world (of which Hitchens is often a critic)? Atheists in such a predicament are, as Mr. Wilson mentioned, "like the minister in the story who wrote in the margin of his notes, "Argument weak. Shout here."

You can find the whole debate in my links to the left.