Squiggler

Absolutely despicable

We are only seven days into a new year and already the number one candidate for most disgusting and despicable story of the year ... here.

In the words of one of the best bumper stickers I've seen:

I BELIEVE IN GOD
IT IS HIS FANS I CAN'T STAND

Intelligent Design, Evolution, Science

In recognition of the latest ruling by a Pennsylvania judge on teaching "intelligent design" in science classes, I'm reposting something I wrote last year on the subject. Frankly, I have no problem with not teaching ID in science classes, but I have nearly as much problem with the teaching of evolution in those same science classes. It isn't that I don't believe that all creatures "evolve" through the constant exchange of DNA and mutations, but the astronomical number required for life to have started by chance makes the "theory of evolution" suspect. My take or better yet my questions on the matter were detailed in the following post:

I do not really understand this controversy as my religious training and study leaves room for both Intelligent Design and Evolution. It is a simple philosophy and idea that basically boils down to "the Glory of God is Intelligence." Actually, to modify that a bit, "the Glory of God is Conscience."

If you read the Genesis creation story carefully and juxtapose the idea that we all started from amino acids in the primordial soup ... the Bible starts out with a pretty much scientific bent with the words:  "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." How did the writers, pre-stone age Nomads, know the order of scientific beginnings?  How did they know that the earth was without form and empty and dark? What would make them even imagine an earth like that? We add light and water and finally land appears. We move on to the land as vegetation that "produced seed and fruits according to their kinds" begins to appear. The first life. So far so good evolution-wise. Intelligent Design would follow with the end of the verse, "And God saw that it was good." So what's wrong with that?

Moving on, we now learn that lights were added to separate the day and night. So I learned that at some point a big chunk got blasted away from the earth and captured to form our moon with its influences on the gravitational pull and because of its regular orbit, the moon and earth's orbit around the sun combine to influence our seasons and our weather. Genesis tells us: "And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth."

Moving on again, we begin to see the amphibians, then the reptiles and then the birds. Sounds pretty much on the evolutionary track as the Bible describes: God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." Did you see that Terradactile? So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good and so he blessed them to "be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."  And then we get to Number Six, the biggie.

Mammals appear. How do we know? Well, we read in Genesis that God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground and wild animals each according to its kind." The verse ends: And it was so. And wasn't it so? Ask an Evolutionist.

Now we get to the part that freaks out the nonbelievers and causes all this dissension over Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. We've eclipsed 10s of millions of years at this point when God says, "Let us (notice the plural here) make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. But what does it mean this word image? In this sense, image includes such characteristics as righteousness, holiness and knowledge. And the Bible tells us that God bestowed on this last of his creations a type of kingship or dominion over all the seeds, fruits and animals. Sounds like the beginnings of homosapiens with their larger brains, their ability to form groups and learn from each other, an ability to design and manufacture tools, to move from being foragers and hunter/gatherers to farmers and ranchers and hey, eventually even computer nerds.  Intelligence is what sets us apart. We think and that thinking sets us apart from all the other "creatures" who exist and survive on instinct. And when God breathed "life" into the last of his creations by imparting this dominion, the seeds were set for the final item that sets man apart from all other living things, whether plant or animal and that was ... spirit and/or conscience. And how do you explain conscience as an evolutionary concept? What earthly or universal genetic mutation could come about that imparts conscience and spiritual awareness?  And how did this now spirit-filled creature called man discover all this in order to pass the story down through the ages when this same evolutionary man had barely gotten to the stone tool stage on the evolutionary scale?

The theory of evolution is far too limiting and it stifles understanding. It explains the nuts and bolts but nothing more. It is to the totality what ordering a T-Bone, Sirloin or Fillet Mignon, rare, medium or well done is to the diner's understanding of cattle breeding and the gene pool. Although the Bible is specific about God creating each to its own kind, there is nothing that says that within those broad boundaries there is no room for selective breeding and survival of the fittest. In fact, one of the very first things we are told is that God gave Man the right to choose and by extension the creatures of the sea, land and air could choose as well. And once man was trusted with "dominion" he was given the ultimate power to make choices for all the other creatures. I think that is called farming, ranching, marriage, science and just about anything else you can think of and probably much we haven't thought of yet.

If you follow any of the wonderful Discovery Channel science shows, you have probably seen the "Story of Eve." In this documentary, the "out of Africa" migrations of the very first homospaiens is traced through DNA and the DNA mutations that occur naturally. Surprise, surprise, we find that all peoples, all races, all ethnic groups whether Eskimos or Islanders, Africans, Asians, Europeans, it doesn't matter, they all track back to the four daughters of one woman's DNA. When Genesis moves to Chapter Two to give an "account" of Adam and Eve, how did they know, how did these stone-age dwellers know that their entire genetic line tracked back to one woman's DNA? Maybe it is "just" evolution, but I don't believe it.

As an aside and conclusion, my interests have always leaned toward understanding how prehistoric man developed a God-concept. To me, the very fact that they did speaks to more than "just" evolutionary forces and genetic memory at work. Evolutionary thought is the result of the arrogance of man. That arrogance has already taken some major blows with the discovery of such things as black smokers under the sea where creatures live and die without the necessary light and oxygen that science was saying only a few short years ago was necessary for life to exist. I don't believe in a "He" God that spews fire and brimstone and makes all kinds of rules meant to set man up for failure. That is a "man creation." But, I am hard pressed to say I don't believe in some kind of over all DESIGN.

A good cause - Bible Gift Packages for the Troops

Click here to view this message in your browser

	Please listen to an important message from Paul Irwin on behalf of our troops. Please help send bibles to our troops over seas this Christmas. Hundreds of thousands of US service men and women will be spending Christmas in Iraq and Afganistan, unable to be with the ones they love. We at the American Bible Society want to remind them that they are loved by us all, at Christmas and all year round. We are putting together gift packages for our brave troops, packages with a Bible, a Christmas Carols CD and a DVD of the First Noel with Roger Moore. You can personalize a message to the recipient and even send it to a particular trooper. Help us make this a great Christmas for our men and women in the military in Iraq and Afganistan. “And God, who supplies seed for the sower and bread to eat, will also supply you with all the seed you need and will make it grow and produce a rich harvest from your generosity.” 2 Cor. 9.10, GNT  877THEBIBLE

Are you a Bush or a Limbaugh conservative?

There is so much being written about the Harriet Miers nomination, it is becoming almost unseemly. Rush Limbaugh weighs in over the weekend with an article that was so convoluted, one has to wonder if he has really lost it. He starts off okay with what I would consider an excellent and succinct statement of what being a conservative is all about when he states at the end of the first paragraph that:

We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. It describes me to a tee.

However, Rush then goes on to say:

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.

Now, I don't know about the years leading up to 1980 being full of "knockdown battles" with the GOP as we were a career military family and involved in our own "knockdown battles" with the liberals of the Jimmy Carter days and the total lack of respect or interest in the plight of the military as a whole and military families in particular. My memory is that it was those of us who wanted to bring patriotism, love of country, pride in who we are, back into the forefront who helped bring Ronald Reagan to the White House.

And what is the most frightening about the Limbaugh statement is the threats it contains. Threats that aren't designed to keep my support or the support of any of us who consider ourselves moderate. A "crackdown" in order to move the nation in the "right" direction. Sounds almost Nazi-like, doesn't it? "Defeating those who obstruct" their agenda. In other words, it is their agenda that is the important thing, not what is good or right for America, not what will build consensus and bring American ideas and values to the front.

You see, even though I am pro-life and therefore support many of the abortion restrictions such as bans on late term and partial birth abortions and the need for parental notification before abortions are performed on minors, I still feel this is an individual decision, not between a woman and her doctor or a woman and the government, but between a woman and her God and/or conscience. It might be hard for me to understand how a woman could kill her own child, but it isn't my place to haunt her for the rest of her life. I would like Roe redecided on less shaky ground and I'll support whatever decision the Courts come up with. Roberts hinted that he might be able to make a case using the Liberty Clause rather than the 9th & 10th amendments and a phony "right of privacy." Do I want the government involved, no not really, do I want my tax dollars involved, no, absolutely not. Do I think abortion is harmful to the woman's mental health, yes, I can't see how it could not be. Would I want a doctor who is willing to cavalierly take a human life, no, no, no. Do I think I have the right to make this decision for someone else, no I don't.

Does the Limbaugh, Colter, Fund, Kristol crowd care how I feel or what I think? I doubt it seriously. Read this diatribe against Bush that contains this little tidbit:

As the Miers debate reveals, many conservative intellectuals have exactly the same problems with Bush as liberals. They disdain his cronyism, doubt his intelligence, question his use of "character" to judge individuals, and can't stand his pandering to evangelicals. "The trouble with Harriet is that she has given us a depressing glimpse into the vast open space that now appears to be the Bush political mind," a piece on The Weekly Standard's website argued last week.

Did Buchanan care if Bill Clinton got elected the first time when he went on his rampages against Bush Sr. in 1992? How quickly we all forget the rise of the Perot faction of about 19% of the American electorate. These are the same conservatives who sold out their party back then and they are willing to do it again now. Their agenda is as much anathema to me as the far left agenda of Howard Dean and the Air America/Cindy Sheehan crowd is to me as well.

If you have any doubt what they want then listen to what David Bernstein says in his belittling comparison of Harriet Miers to Janice Rodgers Brown :

In terms of her record, her outspokenessness, her visibility, her willingness to court controversy in defense of her principles, her independent-mindedness, and just about everything else, Harriet Miers is basically the anti-Brown (or, if you prefer, the Brown of the Bizarro universe). The only thing they seem to have in common is that Miers -- as dull as Brown is interesting, as moderate-seeming as Brown is radical, as untested as a judge as Brown is experienced, as fiery a rhetoritician as Miers is a mouther of platitudes, as establishmentarian as Brown is individualist--may not be confirmable, either.

Or more Criticism of the Miers Nomination, from John Fund:

There are philosophical reasons for Republican senators to oppose Ms. Miers. In 1987, the liberal onslaught on Robert Bork dramatically changed the confirmation process. The verb to bork, meaning to savage a nominee and distort his record, entered the vocabulary, and many liberals now acknowledge that the anti-Bork campaign had bad consequences. It led to more stealth nominees, with presidents hoping their scant paper trail would shield them from attack.

President Bush has now gone further in internalizing the lessons of the Bork debacle. Harriet Miers is a "superstealth" nominee--a close friend of the president with no available paper trail who keeps her cards so close to her chest they might as well be plastered on it. If Ms. Miers is confirmed, it will reinforce the popular belief that the Supreme Court is more about political outcomes than the rule of law.

I hate to break it to Limbaugh, et al, but President George W. Bush did not get elected twice because of his social agenda. As a young active political operative with almost unlimited access to Ronald Reagan and who cut his political teeth under Reagan's strong tutelage, he is far more a Reaganite than the far right and the Limbaugh right are today. Peace through strength, home and business ownership, these are Reagan principles that bring people like me to the voting booth and make us willing to pull the lever for him. And no, I did not originally support GW in the 2000 primaries, but the more I've watched him, the more my confidence in him and my admiration of him has grown.

Would Harriet Miers be my first choice for the Supreme Court? I have no idea because I have yet to hear her. And neither have any of these others and yet they are willing to sacrifice her, embarrass her, belittle her, and not support her. They are willing to set her up for failure and to destroy all the gains over selfish pique.

The only important question, in my non lawyer mind, is:

Does she have an agile and inquisitive mind capable of analyzing all sides of an issue and cutting through the chaff to the heart of a legal question and then be able to weigh all that against our great Constitution and the principles America was founded upon to form a Supreme Court decision that is based on the law and is well decided? I want the decisions rightly decided (not decided by the right) and how much fiery rhetoric that accompanies the decision is totally unimportant. Supreme Court justices aren't supposed to be firebrands, they are supposed to be analytical thinkers that have broad knowledge of Constitutional principles. 

Nazi Hunter dies at 96

VIENNA (Reuters) - VIENNA (Reuters) -Simon Wiesenthal, who waged an untiring campaign to track down Nazi war criminals and keep alive the memory of six million Jews killed in the Holocaust, died on Tuesday aged 96.

Wiesenthal, a Jew and former concentration camp inmate, was best known for helping with the discovery in Argentina of Adolf Eichmann, the man Adolf Hitler entrusted with carrying out the Nazi genocide program against the Jews.

The man who helped trace some 1,100 Nazis from his small, file-crammed Vienna office, died early on Tuesday in his apartment, the Jewish Community of Vienna said. Guests from many countries are expected to attend a memorial on Wednesday.

Wiesenthal will be buried in Israel.

"Simon Wiesenthal acted to bring justice to those who had escaped justice," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said. "In doing so, he was the voice of 6 million." ..... READ MORE

Our Pledge of Allegiance

I am old enough to remember when the words "under God" were added to our Pledge of Allegiance. In fact this memory is so clear in my memory, I can even visualize what my teacher was wearing the day our class was informed of the change. But, the ironic part of my memory is not the meaning or significance of the words "under God," but something much more basic and simple. What I remember is being drilled and then drilled some more on getting the pause correct. This lesson is so ingrained that fifty years later, I still cringe when I hear the Pledge said with pauses before and after those fateful words. I can hear the teacher giving her grammar lesson. You see, I was nine years old and one of the things we were learning at that time was to understand that punctuation helps determine meaning and helps us when reading back. So we drilled on the phrase "one nation under God,<short pause>" rather than "one nation <short pause> under God, <short pause>." I have no memory of any religious discussion or any discussion at all as to what the words "under God" mean in the overall scheme of things. Now if you think my school was somehow not as religiously inclined, I would point out that even though an excellent public school system, our school day started with 10 verses being read from the Old Testament of the Bible, chosen and read out loud by a student, usually one of the Psalms, the recitation of the "Lord's Prayer" and then followed by everyone standing, placing our hands over our hearts and reciting the "Pledge of Allegiance." My classes were made up of about 35% Jewish children, both Orthodox and Reformed, about 15% Catholic and the remaining 50% split between very mainline Presbyterian (descendants of the high concentration of Scots-Irish), Methodist (descendants of the early Quaker families) and Lutheran (descendants of the Pennsylvania German/Dutch) families. If there was any religious dissension in my school, I wasn't aware of it, unless you consider the grousing we "protestant" children had that we didn't get extra days off for holy days like our Jewish school friends did, who got 3 or 4 extra days each year. Nearly all of us had fathers, uncles, even older brothers who had fought in World War II and many, if not all, our Jewish friends had family members who were Holocaust survivors. Our history lessons were full of teaching about religious tolerance and what our forefathers established in the great state of Pennsylvania as they escaped the religious persecutions of the Church of England and the European blood baths against Jews, Catholics and protestants during the reformation period and leading up to the rise of Nazism. Unlike today, where the schools are forced to rewrite the history of this country because of fear of the crazy "establishment" fears so rampant in America today, we were taught that those of different or independent views deserve respect and tolerance. But, in order to teach that lesson, we had to know what the situations of each era were. I just don't know how one teaches history while leaving out the role of God or religious beliefs of the pioneer founders.

Our Pledge of Allegiance has undergone several changes since it was first adopted as our nation's Pledge on October 11, 1892.

I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands:      one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all. October 11, 1892

For the first 25 years, the Pledge was primarily something that school children recited. In 1923, the concern became centered on the large number of adult immigrants our nation was experiencing and the concern that there was built in confusion over pledging allegiance to "my Flag." So, on Flag Day, June 14, 1923 the wording was changed to:

I pledge allegiance to my the Flag of the United States, and to the Republic for which it stands:      one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all. June 14, 1923

One year later, the wording was changed again for even greater clarification:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands:      one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all. June 14, 1924

It wasn't until the heightened patriotism surrounding World War II that the Pledge of Allegiance was OFFICIALLY adopted by the United States when the United States Congress included the Pledge to the Flag in the United States Flag Code (Title 36), June 1942. One year later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite the Pledge as part of their daily school routine. In 1945, the official title of the Pledge was designated as the Pledge of Allegiance rather than the Pledge to the Flag, as previously known.

The last change to the Pledge came in 1954 when the words "under God" were added by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and he stated:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

The final version had grown from the original 23 words written for a Columbus Day celebration honoring the Flag to the present day 31 word pledge of loyalty not only to the Flag, but to the American ideal and way of life.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag      of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands:      one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all. June 14, 1954

 

"Crescent of Embrace" - NO!

From Realclearpolitics.com:

Thursday September 8 2005
IS THE "CRESCENT OF EMBRACE" AN OUTRAGE?: Perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but is anyone else struck by the fact that the design for the memorial unveiled yesterday in Pennsylvania to commemorate the crash of UAL Flight 93 on 9/11 bears a striking resemblance to one of the major symbols of Islam? Take a look:

The red crescent moon is the symbol of the The Red Crescent Society, the arm of the International Federation of The Red Cross dedicated to serving Islamic countries and the crescent moon with a star is the internationally-recognized symbol of the faith of Islam. It is featured prominently in some variation on the flags of most Islamic states:

Is this really the sort of symbol we want commemorating the crash of UAL Flight 93?

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!! Insulting on so many levels.

Follow-up: Since comments are being written that want to politicize this topic and somehow use it as a stepping off point for their diatribes against President Bush, I think it important to say that this land is important to me. My Great Great Great Great Grandfather with his sons, pioneered this land soon after the Revolutionary War ended. These were hardworking, God fearing, patriotic families who believed 100% that a good education, a willingness to give one's best, and common sense were the recipe for success. Their graves are scattered throughout the churchyards in the area surrounding the crash site. I do not for one moment believe that a single hero on that plane that fateful day gave one single thought to his or her political affiliation before deciding to act, anymore than I'd believe my ancestors would have when the Indians were attacking and carrying off women and children. There are times in one's life when honor should be the choice and this was the choice the heroes of Flight 93 made. To dishonor their sacrifice with a Memorial that even remotely gives a perception of honoring the cowards responsible desecrates not only the crash site but the land of my ancestors. In other words, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!

PS: And NASCAR couldn't do any worse. At least they know what stands for and it isn't evil cowards.

Right vs left, Christian vs Muslim, Oppressors vs Thinkers & Doers

Early in my blogging experience, I wrote the following post as a way of describing the conflict between the Western Judeo-Christian world and the Islamic world. It was my intention back then to follow up with an historical continuation. I have not done that as my blog began to go down a different avenue of interest. However, today I read a comment to a question that posed the question as to why the left in this country identifies more with Muslims than with their own Christian countrymen. My theory is that it has nothing at all to do with religion and everything to do with those who advocate common sense and intelligent reasoning using the brains God gave us to use against those who advocate the oppression of thought whether by liberal academics, moonbats, clerics, preachers, or the concept of a petty and angry God. The left wants to oppress thought and freedom and so do the radical right. For that reason, I'm going to repeat my earlier post that is archived over on my old blog and not quickly available here for reference. In that post, my conclusion was simply that it all boils down to old fashioned sibling rivalry. Daddy (God) loves me more than you, nanna nanna nanna. This reasoning flies in the face of both the covenant God made with Abraham regarding Isaac and Ishmael and presupposes that some part of God's creations are more loved by God than others, which in this writer's opinion is pure hogwash. It also eliminates one of the most basic premises of God's whole design ... that human kind (man) is given dominon and CHOICES in how to exercise this dominon. The rules are man made. As far as I know there is only one basic rule of God, the 10 Commandments not withstanding, which is so simple it is ignored by all: we are to LOVE. This is the theme over and over in both the old and new testaments of the Bible. It is expressed in a myriad of ways and most of us have learned this tenant when we memorized the words: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I get angry at the Christian right radicals because they forget that Jesus was one of the "chosen" with lineage to Isaac and tend to worship Paul and his arrogant and sexist attitude instead of glorifying God. I get angry at the left for refusing to see the hand of God in all of mankind instead glorifying themselves and I get angry at the Muslim thought because it grows out of sulking, disaffected children who use torture, oppression and rape to control.

Originally posted 2 December 2004

I've been trying to organize my thoughts and decide whether to start this Middle East history study in the present and work back in time, or start in ancient times and work forward. Because I believe that all the history of strife and alienation of the Middle East traces back to the " Covenant of Abraham," I've decided to start with the ancient and work toward the present (I should live so long). The first signs of civilization began approximately 4500 B.C. Two civilizations emerged at about the same time ... the Mesopotamians to the northeast of Palestine and Egyptian to the southwest of it. It was about 2500 years before these two civilizations discovered the existence of the other and the fight began. Palestine, as the buffer, had little chance of avoiding the fight.

The oldest and most prominent Mesopotamian civilizations began with the city-states of Susa, Kish, and Ur, now part of modern Iraq. In the third millennium B.C., Sargon I, conquered the Sumerians and formed the Sumerian-Akkadian kingdom with a high standard of living and a highly developed culture. The development of cuneiform writing was their greatest contribution and a vast improvement over Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Around 2100 B.C., all city-states in this area were united into the far-reaching Babylonian   Empire. Hammurabi was the Moses of the Babylonians, giving them their code of law as a present from heaven, much as Moses gave his code of law to the Israelites at Mount Sinai one thousand years later.

While the Babylonians were building their cities, drinking their wine, getting rich, and dreaming of world conquest, there were as yet no Jews. In about 2000 B.C., a new Semitic tribe, the Assyrians, began to challenge the soft and rich Babylonians. At about the same time, a man named Terah took his son Abram, Abram's wife Sarai, and his grandson Lot, the nephew of Abram, and emigrated from the cosmopolitan city of Ur in Babylonia. Not much is known about Terah except that the Bible traces his genealogy to Shem, one of the three sons of Noah. Whether he was a Babylonian or what language he spoke or what his occupation was, is never mentioned. We have to assume he was not a poor sheepherder since he lived in one of the most sophisticated cities of that age.

So why does any of this matter? The Bible, our main source of reference leaves more questions unanswered than answered. All we know is that by the act of crossing the River Euphrates, Terah and his family group become the first people in the Bible identified as Ivriim, or in English "Hebrews," ... the people "who crossed over," the people "from the other side of the river."

Terah and his family wander six hundred miles northwest from Ur to the land of Haran, in the southern part of what is now Turkey. Terah dies and the story of Abram/Abraham begins ... a beginning that has not ended to the present day. It is in Haran after his father's death that Abram has his first meeting with the Lord God "Jehovah." God proposes his Covenant to the elderly Abram. Abram is to be called Abraham and Sarai, his wife, to be called Sarah or Princess. To seal the Covenant, all males were to be circumcised. In return, God will make the descendants of Abraham "His Chosen People and place them under His protection. (Note: God does not promise to make them better, only that they will exist as a separate and distinct entity and be His people.) From an historical point of view, it doesn't matter if this experience was real or imaginary on Abraham's part. In four thousand years, the idea of a Covenant is still alive and well in daily prayers and synagogues around the world. The idea of a "Covenant with God" is the driving force in Judaism and without it there can be no Judaism and no Jews. For four hundred years, Abraham and his descendants wandered about as nomads in the land of Canaan, without a country of their own or a stable form of government. The were often regarded by the pagan population as strange and a little crazy, worshiping a God that was invisible. But, we get ahead of ourselves.

When God told Abraham "I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you," and when He said about Sarah, "I'll bless her and give her a son. And she'll become a mother of many nations; kings of nations will come from her," Abraham wondered how he at 100 years and his wife at ninety years could have a child. Abraham called out, "Oh, that Ishmael might find favor in your sight" And God answered, "As for Ishmael, I've heard your request. I have blessed him and I will make him fruitful and will give him many descendants. He will father twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you this time next year, will I establish my covenant."

As far as I am concerned, we have reached the crux of the matter. Isaac and Ishmael. Half brothers. The elder forced to take second place to the younger. The makings of a dysfunctional family right from the git go.

So I'll pick up this story later as we begin to trace the history of Isaac and Ishmael.
End of old post *********** End of old post

Time flying tooooooo fast

I keep writing that I'm back and feeling good after my surgery, but it seems that every time I write this, I have a set back. I developed a bronchial infection, which shouldn't have anything to do with my post surgical knee recovery, but I haven't been that lucky. Who knew that everytime I coughed, my knee would feel like it was exploding? The good news is that TV has been fairly interesting to watch as I sit captive in the only comfortable chair that works right now ... the trusty ol' recliner. And this recliner is old. So old, in fact, I had to get my son to dig it out of a pending garage sale pile at the back of the garage. Every time I redecorate, I swear there will be no more recliners taking up space and here I am now with the biggest and ugliest recliner sitting smack in the middle of my bedroom.

Pope

I want to send blessings and prayers along to all my Catholic friends. The entire funeral for Pope John Paul II was awesome to watch. Wasn't the music beautiful? Although I'm not Catholic, one of two best friends from childhood came from a very religious Catholic family and I have many memories of traipsing along after her as she went for various classes prior to her First Communion. I think that was in the days of Pope Pious XII. There is much to be said for both tradition and majesty and the formality that transcends centuries.  I do have to shake my head in wonder, however, when I listen to all the talk about the "American Catholic church" and how the newly selected Pope Bennedict XVI is a bad choice because he actually supports adherence to church doctrine. I don't understand the bruhaha over women as priests. If you are a woman who believes God has called you to minister and pastor, then do it ... there are millions of people in need of comfort and compassion and are eager to learn about God. The idea that as a woman, you can't serve God and your calling unless ordained is in and of itself a mark that you are more interested in being self-serving than in any deep spiritual calling. As far as abortion rights and the Catholic church ... the Church can't make up new rules to suit American liberals. The homosexuality issue is in some ways more overt and in others much more subtle. Pope John Paul II said, "we are all children of the same God." Are gays and lesbians being shunned by God? I don't think so ... should they be in positions of church leadership, no, I don't think so anymore than anyone else who breaks God's commandments. Doesn't anyone else think it terribly hypocritical that the same people who are ranting that the Church must change are the same ones criticizing the Church for allowing Cardinal Law to say a funeral Mass in Rome.

Michael Jackson Trial

I'm sick of the Michael Jackson trial. Is he a pedaphile? I don't think so and, frankly, would be more worried about leaving my kids with DA Tom Snedden than at Neverland. Why? Well, Snedden creeps me out. I was listening to McCaulley Culkin describing Jackson's so-called bedroom and was very surprised to hear that it is a 2-story room with 3 private bathrooms attached. I agree that the whole scene is odd, but my BS meter tells me there is something very wrong in convicting a man on testimony of disgruntled/fired employees who themselves have lost major cases against Jackson and owe him in the millions. I listend to forty minutes of criticism of Jackson's penchant for kissing children on the head the other night. To hear the Court TV haridens describe it, Jackson should get the death penalty for this infraction alone. Following this forty minute diatribe, the station cut to a biography of Pope John Paul II and I counted eight separate times that the Pope kissed young children on the head. Back to the anchors ... praising the Pope for his years of reaching out and being so loving to the youth of the world. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing the Pope with Michael Jackson, but one has to be disgusted by the hypocrisy going on in the media.

Jessica Lunsford

I'm sick all over about poor Jessica Lunsford ... buried alive, kneeling and hugging her purple dolphin. I'm not a violent person, but I think if I were one of her parents, I'd be wanting to hurt someone real bad.

Jane Fonda

Am I sorry that a Vietnam Vet felt the need to spit in Jane Fonda's face? No, not really. I've listened to at least a half dozen in-depth interviews with her as she makes the book selling rounds of the talk shows and I'm not convinced she has changed her tune, despite the limp apologies she keeps serving up. I guess for those who did not live through those times first hand, it all seems a big deal about nothing. My former husband was in-country when Fonda did her "immature" (her words) song fest on the tank. It was a very big deal for him and for us at home who were being constantly harrassed by the anti-war crowd. And she is still lying. The POWs and the active duty servicemen believed then and I think still believe now that Nixon's heavy duty bombing is what helped bring that war to an end. It is arrogant and immature for Fonda to still be claiming a personal victory in ending the war. Sorry Jane, no forgiveness from this military family either.