Billy Graham and Bad Theology

When I see Christian organizations like the Billy Graham Association - a group of people that, you would think, has at least a basic understanding of God's sovereignty - offering up a distorted view of the nature of God, I have to wonder about the state of modern Christendom:

Why did God make [Adam and Eve] so they could sin and do wrong? The reason is because He didn't want them to be puppets or robots. He made them with a free will - for only then could they freely love Him. Yes, it was a risk on God's part - but if He hadn't taken it, Adam and Eve (and you and I) would be robots, not humans.

As much as I respect what the folks at BGA have done to spread the gospel, I must say that they certainly haven't cornered the market on sound theology. I can only imagine that remarks like this must sound rather insulting to a holy, sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent, and just God.

Iraqi Sovereignty: Mission Accomplished?

Now that the Iraqis and their officially Muslim nation are in the capable hands
of the newly appointed puppet regime, our troops will be on their way home, right? Well, not quite.

Iraq will continue to rely heavily on our troops for security. Close to 140,000 will remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future, and the U.S. will maintain a strong military presence there in the years to come.

So, we will continue our military occupation of Iraq while claiming all the while that it's a sovereign nation? Do the neocons in the Bush administration even know what the word "sovereignty" means?

Webster defines "sovereignty" as "supreme power, especially over a body politic" or "freedom from external control." That can only mean one of two things: either dictionaries are in short supply on Capitol Hill, or most of the men and women leading this nation are illiterate.

Of course, this shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, this is the same administration that proclaimed "mission accomplished" eight months ago.

Hey, Uncle Sam, Conscript THIS!

It isn't hard to understand the rush to war when only seven members of Congress have children in the military. After all, sacrificing other people's children is far less taxing on one's conscience - and Washington bureaucrats are nothing if not conscientious.

What would happen if the military draft were reinstated? Well, probably not much as far as politicians are concerned; their kids would most likely be given cushy, domestic assignments in the National Guard. But could average citizens be facing a draft? Don't think it can't happen.

Many Americans believe that a military draft is likely in the very near future. Newsmax.com reports that "the Pentagon has stepped up preparations for a new Selective Service System that could allow for a full-blown draft by next year."

The government is dismissing such rumors with a carefully worded denial posted on the Selective Service website:

Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces - either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.

But wait...

A bill was introduced in both the House and the Senate just last year to have the draft reinstated. The Universal National Service Act of 2003 reads as follows:

To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

Oh, I see. It isn't enough to ship our young men off to die; we have to respect "equal rights" and start conscripting women.

Let's face it. If things continue the way they're going, a draft is inevitable. With a military presence in 135 countries across the globe, our resources are stretched to the breaking point - and everyone knows that an empire cannot survive without good men and women willing (or forced) to defend it.

CFR: Tool of Tyrants

If some Republicans have their way, the new McCain-Feingold campaign finance law may be used to ban ads for Michael Moore's "documentary," Fahrenheit 9/11. This, according to a recent article in The Hill.

Face it, folks: freedom of speech is dead. King George killed it on March 27, 2002.

Terrorists Don't Play by the Rules

Terrorists think that beheading a hostage is shocking. Why? Because it's so up-close and personal. Americans don't like that. We like our violence the old fashioned way: the crackle of gunfire, thunderous explosions, hundreds of faceless, nameless people screaming and running for their lives.

Think about it. The incidents of torture and murder at Abu Ghraib are glossed over. The demise of 10,000 Iraqis doesn't phase us. We casually accept the fact that 1.5 million unborn children are butchered every year right in our own neighborhoods.

But show a helpless American citizen on television and videotape his beheading...well, we just won't stand for it! Don't these barbarians know that there are rules to follow? Killing is only acceptable when it's done in large numbers, from great distances - preferably from behind a machine gun or in the seat of a tank or bomber.

That's how civilized human beings are supposed to kill each other.

How Will Republicans Honor Reagan's Legacy?

Despite the fact that the size of government grew during his eight years in office, Ronald Reagan did, in fact, preside over one of the greatest economic booms of the 20th century. And, though it now seems to have been reduced to a cliché, helped people feel good about being American.

As the country mourns Reagan's passing, I cannot help but wonder how his memory will be honored by his fellow Republicans. It's one thing to reminisce about the good ol' days when politicians actually had respect for the office they were holding and were venerated by the average citizen, but what happens when the pomp and circumstance begin to fade? Surely the legacy of one of the most loved presidents in U.S. history is more than the sum of a few fond memories, poignant recollections and humorous anecdotes.

Reagan once said, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." If Republicans really wish to honor the memory of their fallen leader, why not work to solve that problem? Why not begin the arduous process of shrinking government?

Republicans have consistently looked to Reagan as an icon in the fight against big government, yet it was the GOP that presided over the largest government growth spurt in recent memory. Government has grown more expensive and more intrusive in the last four years under a Republican administration than it did during the previous eight years when a Democrat ran the White House.

Is this the legacy Republicans wish to preserve?

It Will Happen Here Soon Enough

The Thought Police have been busy, I see:

Brigitte Bardot Fined for Inciting Racial Hatred

French actress-turned-animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot was convicted Thursday of inciting racial hatred and ordered to pay $6,000 - the fourth such fine for the former sex symbol since 1997.

The Paris court sentenced Bardot, 69, for remarks in her book A Scream in the Silence, an outspoken attack on gays, immigrants and the jobless that shocked France last year.

In the book, she laments the "Islamization of France" and the "underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam" ...

This wasn't some civil lawsuit over defamation of character. Bardot was actually put on trial and convicted of a crime.

Don't worry. It will happen here soon enough.

Thanks, A.C.L.U., for Breaking the Chains of Religious Tyranny!

L.A. County to Remove Cross from County Seal after A.C.L.U. Challenge

LOS ANGELES (AP) - County supervisors have decided to remove a tiny cross from the county's official seal rather than face a potential lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union...



Thank goodness the A.C.L.U. stepped in. I had always been offended by this symbol of hatred and intolerance - and I don't even live in the theocracy known as Los Angeles County.