Republicans have their Pee Wee Herman moment

About 20 years ago I was at the house of some relatives. Their four year old son was watching a television program called "Pee Wee's Playhouse" with some friends. I had never heard of the show, but it seemed bizarrely odd. I sat down with the kids to watch.

One feature quickly became annoying. A particular word was chosen at the beginning of the show. Whenever that word was spoken, alarms and sirens would go off. The kids were instructed to run around in circles screaming. They learned that lesson well. Every 5 minutes or so the word would get mentioned: sirens went off, and the living room erupted into screams as the crazy kids spun and flapped their arms.

The Republican Party in 2007 apparently follows a similar pattern. There is some prescribed phrase that triggers insanity among them. Ron Paul, last Tuesday, apparently found the magic words to set them off.

"Fruitcake." "Wackjob." And to a Paul supporter: "You disgust me." These are phrases you can find at prominent conservative blogs regarding Ron Paul's sparring with former mayor and drag-queen impresario Rudy Giuliani in the latest Republican debate. (Below I set out the exchange from the transcript).

Ron Paul reminded people that the traditional conservative foreign policy was non-intervention. One does not meddle with other countries' internal affairs. He invoked the old conservative icon Robert Taft. He reminded us that this was the view of the founders of the country. The fact that the US doesn't understand the Middle East and nevertheless tries to insert itself there leads to hatred and a desire to attack us.

Rudy Giulinai didn't like this. In fact, he stated that he had never heard of such a view before. (Keep in mind that this explanation is also set out in numerous government reports, including a CIA analysis. Rudy needs to read some of the government's findings.) He demanded that Paul retract his statement. Paul, of course, refused. He reminded Giuliani that it was the CIA that coined the term "blowback", refering to Iran's retaliation against the US for deposing a duly elected leader and installing the oppressive Shah.

So-called conservatives are now spinning and screaming. Michigan Republicans want Ron Paul banned from their debate. Other Republicans are accusing him of being in the wrong party (which is odd, considering Paul's reference to Taft). Nasty names are being thrown about. This is what passes for political discourse in our time.

At least some of the conservatives are taking a breath and reconsidering. R.E. Finch has a thoughtful post on the conservative blog redstate.com.

I hope others come to their senses too. I'm not expecting a lot, however. Ron Paul has merely pointed out what used to be common wisdom. Who knew that such simple ideas could cause such panic?

From the transcript:

MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.
Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.
Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.
And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Reaching for my semi-automatic

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. --Ecclesiastes 1:9

Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver. --Hermann Goering (attributed without citation) (1893-1946)

For a long time I avoided dealing with postmodernism. It is an aesthetic issue. The jargon sets my teeth on edge. When I hear the word "meta-narrative," I want to start shooting (only metaphorically, I assure you).

It is not a recent affliction. In the 70s one often heard of shifting paradigms. My indwelling sin had to be restrained from the urge to shift proboscides. I prefer my abstractions concrete; my ideals tactile. My intuition suggests that big empty words suggest big empty heads.

Of course, short and loaded words may say something about my own head.

But postmodernism cannot be avoided. Everyone who has anything to say about our culture is talking about it. I admit I am a brute Philistine on the subtleties, but it seems that postmodernism is what happens when existentialism quits trying.

Very broadly, as I understand it, existentialism focuses on freedom, action, and self-definition as being the foundation of human meaning. Postmodernism questions the idea of meaning itself. Like the dog that gave the original cynics their name, postmodernism tracks vulnerable prey and devours. Its specialty is deconstruction.

This deconstruction may be a virtue. It thoroughly and effectively demolishes modernism. But it is also a fatal flaw because it demolishes itself. When we give up meaning, we give up words. Without words, there is no truth. We end up in a sort of pre-Stoic nihilism.

. . . there is no new thing under the sun.

Even if there is no new thing, it is our thing. We do not live in the age of the Puritans, or even in the golden post-war age of prosperity and promise. We live in an age of despair and doubt. The postmodern dialog expresses it in the most appropriate way possible: it denies man the ability to comprehend his problems, let alone solve them.

Maybe, then, postmodernism portends some good. It focuses on narratives, which I would rather call stories. Everyone loves to hear a story. But, mostly, everyone wants to tell their own story. At some point, everybody will exhaust their repertoire. This is because everyone will find that meaning is meaningless. After a due season of wandering in Mesech and tent-dwelling in Kedar, perhaps we will be driven back to the Word of John 1--the Word that tells us that words are real things with real meaning.

Reducing scripture to a narrative diminishes its force. Of course there are narratives within the Bible. But the real story is plain: we are lost and without hope or power. The sooner our culture realizes this, the sooner it has a reason to turn to Truth. Christ is King right now. No one can come to God but by Him.

So, for now I sheath my pistol. I've learned new languages before, I'll try to learn postmodernism too. I doubt I will ever understand it, but I aim to chronicle its undoing.

The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.

And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Ecclesiastes 12:11-14.

Batteries not included

I've been sort of pressed at work and school and therefore haven't been blogging. Nevertheless, I couldn't resist talking about this news item about a Talking Jesus Doll.

Continuing in my curmudgeonly manner, I find it an abomination. The Lord and Sovereign Creator of the Universe, Judge of All, Savior of His people, King of Kings, and Wonderful Counselor is represented as a push-button battery-operated toy. This item is put out by people who claim to have a "ministry". The company also has a talking Moses doll. He even recites the Ten Commandments. Apparently nobody in the design department listened to the part about the 2nd Commandment.

The news report indicated that Toys for Tots initially rejected the doll because they didn't want to offend Jews or Muslims. No mention of any Christians who might be offended. Sadly, they are probably right, many would not be. May God be merciful to those ignorant of His law and His character.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Exodus 20:4-6.

Neither could they blush.

(I have not included hyperlinks because of my own sensibilities).

"Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD." Jeremiah 8:12.

"And said, O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God: for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens." Ezr 9:6.

The people of Jeremiah's day faced a tremendous crisis but did not know it. It wasn't for lack of Jeremiah's crying. They were dulled by their deep apostasy. They worshiped idols. Their false prophets cried "Peace, peace" when there was no peace. Abominations abounded, yet they could not blush.

Similarly, our prevailing ethic discounts shame. We dare not blush in public. In the City (a rather uninspired imitation of Vanity Fair), images and self-images routinely assault the senses. Yet to exhibit sensibilities would be to admit weakness. Or worse, it would peg you as a prude.

Which brings me to the billboards, the bus-banners, and the radio advertisements. We are exhorted to pay $24.50 a head to see a traveling cadaver show.

"Bodies: The Exhibition", is a traveling exhibit of human corpses. We are assured that it is educational. The bodies have been preserved by a plasticizing method developed by a German doctor, Dr. Gunther von Hagens. He figures that some 20 million people have seen other similar exhibits he has put on.

The cadavers are placed in various poses and in various degrees of dissection for our edification and awe. Some of them are shown playing tennis or throwing balls. Some are on skateboards.

We are not to worry about the provenance of the corpses. They are "on loan" from an institution in China. We are assured that none of them were executed political prisoners. Instead, they were unidentified, and probably homeless, people who died on the street or in the hospital. We are told to trust the Chinese medical school in Dalian, considered the "hub of the corpse-processing industry."

They weren't always so careful. Back in 2004, Dr. von Hagens was forced to send seven corpses back to China from an exhibition in Germany because it was found that two of the "highest quality" specimens had been killed by shots to the head. The bodies had also come from a Chinese medical school. It is apparently located just down the street from a prison.

The notorious Oscar Wilde once said, "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between." He may have been right. Europe, for all its decadence, seems to have put up a greater fuss about these exhibits than any city in our country. Some people there still have the capacity for shame and outrage.

I have only run across two local news stories critical of the exhibition. One is a web-based news site run by a self-described Gnostic. The other is an article in the homosexually-oriented local weekly the Stranger (sic). The author of that article concluded his piece this way:

"I feel ashamed of myself when I look on his dead body. And when I think about the strategic location of his body—at the end of the tour and beside a sign that says "To See Is to Know"—I feel heartsick. The truth is, we don't know. We will never know. Only that man knows how he died. We can only wonder.

And gape."

Unrest in Pieces, Dan Ruisi, Oct. 26-Nov. 1, 2006, the Stranger.

Millions of people have spent more than $20 each to gape. Tremendous profit is there for those who traffic in the fruits of death. Only a few leftwing souls seem to be outraged and ashamed.

Lest we forget, Death is an outrage. Mocking it will not mitigate its impact. The remains of creatures made in the image of God should not be hawked for entertainment value or to produce a sense of awe. Here, commercial return on investment is a blatant form of sin's wages.

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16.

". . . but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil." Romans 16:19.

Being harmless is not to be silent. Being simple is not to be ignorant. We are called to blush and to be outraged at abominations. Let not our minds be dulled to the point that we cannot proclaim the need for repentance and faith in Christ.

References:

All laid bare in "Bodies" exhibit. Seattle Times, Aug. 20, 2006.

Von Hagens forced to return controversial corpses to China. The Guardian ,January 23, 2004. http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,1129261,00.html

"Bodies: The Exhibition": an Ethical Nightmare, Oct. 19, 2006. http://www.snant.com/fp/archives/bodies-the-exhibition-an-ethical-nightmare/

Unrest in Pieces, Dan Ruisi, Oct. 26-Nov. 1, 2006, the Stranger. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=93635

Spinning for Secrets, Reflections from a Lord's Day Journey

Gnosticism (nŏs'tĭsĭz-m), dualistic religious and philosophical movement of the late Hellenistic and early Christian eras. The term designates a wide assortment of sects, numerous by the 2d cent. A.D.; they all promised salvation through an occult knowledge that they claimed was revealed to them alone. . . .

(The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.)

Although many definitions can be found for Gnosticism, the basic idea is that there is some sort of secret knowledge that will lead to a better state. The prospect entices. We, as fallen beings, want to get ahead of the other guy. We mitigate our competitiveness by convincing ourselves that we would bring everyone else along after we have figured it out. But we do want to be first.

The mystery religions rehash an old story. Satan offered the mystery knowledge to Eve in the Garden. "You will not surely die" was as plain a lie as any ever was. Yet it was accepted, and is accepted in our day, on the ungrounded and greedy belief that we can bootstrap ourselves to the better place. Adam and Eve did not die immediately for their disobedience. But they did surely die. We do too.

I once calculated that a typical undergraduate curriculum requires approximately 1,600 actual hours of lecture time. I recall that during the Reformation, and on through the history of the Protestant church up to the 19th century, it was common for church members to hear three hours or more of tight and logical sermons every Lord's Day. They'd then spend the rest of the day talking about the sermons. Not counting catechism as children, most church goers had the equivalent of two undergraduate degrees of lecture time by their late-twenties. Unlike today's courses, the content was solid. People knew how to think. It shouldn't be so surprising that statesmen from the colonial and revolutionary war period were smart. The pool of thoughtful people was relatively large in those days. Some no doubt were not Christians, but they still had deep wells to draw from.

Even so, that old enemy, self-absorbed Gnosticism, lay in wait. Perhaps the shock of the industrial revolution and the accompanying explosion in scientific knowledge distracted people from their lessons. It became easier to tinker than to think. The improvement in the standard of living was very good. Yet the decline in thinking, in no small part due to the decline in good preaching, opened the door for old and well-crafted deception.

Gnosticism now pops up in strange places: conspiracy theories about sinister people in the know who control things; New Age meditation techniques to heal the world from disharmony; human potential, biofeedback, genetically modified intelligence, etc. All of these things have a ring of plausibility, but only if we are naïve enough to trust our instincts or our feelings.

Of course there are conspiracies, but the ones made up by foolish men with secret knowledge are vanity. Of course the world needs supernatural healing, but our will-power is utterly powerless to accomplish this. And of course humans had potential, but sin snuffed that out. As with a car stuck in the mud, the faster the wheels spin, the deeper goes the rut.

A professor I knew reportedly once said, "there are many ways to do it wrong." Being a Gnostic herself, she probably has not yet realized the import of her observation. The real conspiracy is in how man is distracted from the truth by the mad pursuit of the secret.

Our church's own Lord's Day worship took about three hours yesterday. We considered the total conflict of worldviews, the futility of disbelief, the epistemology of true knowledge, and the glorious sovereignty of God. None of this information is secret knowledge. It is revealed plainly in Scripture. Gnostics hate plain knowledge because it doesn't give them a private advantage.

"Thus saith the LORD: Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Jer. 6:16.

Lord, I pray to be kept on your old paths.

Another Bumpersticker

"Motherhood by Choice, Not by Chance."

Apparently some people are convinced that chance causes pregnancy. No matter how careful you are, chance, more fickel than instant karma, will trip you up. If only we had a choice to not take chances.

Bumper Sticker Theology

Seen on a car bumper this morning: "Eve was framed."

The driver was a burly man in a baseball cap. I spent more time than was wise trying to imagine the scenario that resulted in this strip of paper being affixed to his car. Of all the philosophical or political statements one could choose to purchase, this one struck me as a remarkably succinct expression of theology gone bad.

It also exhibits precisely Eve's error. If we can believe Eve was framed, that means that we can determine what is right and wrong for ourselves. By trying to do that, God tells us, we become blind--and dead.

The burly cap-man probably wants to defend Eve because he hopes to defend himself. But even Eve did not seek such a defense.

"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool," Prov. 28:26, and, "But the fool rageth, and is confident." Prov. 12:10.

Lord protect me from such confidence.

How Not to Know God

During a break from writing and responding to various motions, I noticed a book in the lunch room:

How to Know God by Deepak Chopra.

I had read some things by the author in the past. I sort of knew what to expect. But I picked it up to see if it had an index. It actually did. No entry for "Jesus", no entry for "Christ", not even an entry for "Moses".

I didn't bother to look through it much more, except I did see that it offered advice on the proper posture for meditation.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me." Jn. 14:6.

You'd think a book about knowing God would have at least something to say about this basic truth. More than 200 pages were devoted to ignoring it. As that old king said, "a fool hath no delight in understanding, but only that his heart may reveal itself." Prov. 18:2.

By the way, the index did have an entry for Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Providential Justice

A Lunchtime Vignette.

A while back I was sitting in a little eating area at Pike Place Market in Seattle. I was reading over some notes and eating a hotdog. Tourists crowded the pig statue for pictures. The fish mongers were tossing halibut for the cameras. Natives were grabbing a quick bite.

I like bicycle messengers in principle. Some of them, however, are jerks. One such jerk pushed his bike through the crowd, plopped down on a bench, and leaned his bike against the table so that it pretty effectively cut in half the capacity of the narrow corridor. People struggled by. One middle-aged woman asked if he would move his bicycle. He responded, "hey, f--- off. I'm only gonna be here a few minutes."

Just as my blood pressure started to rise, I heard a crash. A blind man, very startled and confused, had bumped into the bike. He was unhurt, but a bit distraught. Kind people assured him not to worry and guided him away.

Meanwhile, the bike messenger was picking up the front of his bike and looking at it like kid with a broken toy. The front wheel had "tacoed", that is, it was folded over like a taco shell because some of the spokes had broken. He gathered up his bag, his bike, and left his sandwich. It was unlikely his bike would be making any deliveries that afternoon.

We aren't to seek vengeance, but I think it is quite all right to delight in God's providential judgments.

"Vengeance is mine, and recompense, at the time when their foot shall slide: for the day of their calamity is at hand."

Deut. 31:35

Losing Friendship

"There was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved."
John 13:23.

Does not this image make us red-blooded so-called conservatives a bit uncomfortable? I know I'm not very comfortable with the idea of placing my head on the chest of another man while eating. Why is this?

Of course, there is the culture difference. I worked in the Middle East years ago as a farm consultant. Once I was invited to a tea gathering by some of the laborers. One of the men there sat next to me and put my hand in his and routinely patted me on the shoulder with affection. I was not comfortable, but I didn't let anyone know that. Later, I asked an Arab friend, who knew the man, about it. He told me that the affectionate man was not at all queer or odd. Rather, he considered me a "nearest dearest friend" for two reasons: (1) I defended him against unjust abuse from the farm manager on some occasion, and (2) I honored him with my presence at his humble tea gathering. A nearest dearest friend expresses his pleasure and is willing to sacrifice everything he has to defend and support his friend. I realized that I should have been the one humbled.

Yet there is another thing at work. If you look at pictures of soldiers from WWI or WWII, you will often see buddies with their arms around each other, walking down the street or joyfully posing before the next deadly mission. Even in my youth this was common. It was camaraderie, symbolizing friends for life, and friends even in death.

In my life this all suddenly stopped in the mid-70s. My closest friends said, "hey, I don't want anybody to think I'm homo." We made doubly sure not to express affection for our friends because we were afraid of being labeled queer. Abandoning any expression of deep friendship, we became isolated and shallow.

This is the legacy of "tolerating" homosexuality. Tolerance for sin has trashed the beauty of friendship. In this day, David and Jonathan's friendship-- that knitting of their souls -- would be considered a sure sign that they are just as dirty as the inhabitants of Sodom. This, of course, is the goal of tolerance. It seeks to drag virtue, goodness, and honor down into the gutter. It is the only way the sinful have, absent grace, to feel vindicated.

We should not let them win. They need to be called on it.

Coolidge, aka Ahasuerus, responds to "that dog"

It seems that talented yet underachieving dog who owns the Zartmans has tagged me.
http://kamelda78.blogspot.com/2006/08/well-read-dog.html

I have graciously allowed my servant, MordechaihiVic, to answer for me:

1. One book that changed my life:

Esther. King James version. As soon as this was read in my presence, I understood my place.

2. One book that I've read more than once:
Cats of Lamu, Jack Couffer. A wonderful book about cats descended from the royal Egyptian courts, isolated on a Muslim island. Many pretty pictures.

Also, the cat diary on the web. I read it every day: http://webpages.csus.edu/~sac81922/day_183_of_my_captivity.htm

3. One book that I'd want on a desert island: Glamorgan's Tales, A Cat's Garden of Verse, Lauren Bain (Bottomly)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966852400/104-5823217-8712749?n=283155

It was written and published by the people who think they own me.

4. One book that made me laugh:

The Incredible Journey, Sheila Burnford. I laughed when the dogs got into trouble.

5. One book that made me cry:

The Incredible Journey, Sheila Burnford. I cried when the cat got into trouble.

6. One book I wish had been written:

See second answer to #2 above, my story needs to be told.

7. One book that I wish had never been written:

101 Uses for a Dead Cat, author not to be named. Some people are beneath even my contempt.

8. One book that I am currently reading:

I do not read, but I am having read to me John Owen's little known work, "A Vindication of the inclusive interpretation of Jonah 4:11 and universal salvation of animals, and animadversions against the Popish doctrine of the unelected animals."

9. One book that I have been meaning to read:

Cat & Dog Theology: Rethinking Our Relationship With Our Master by Bob Sjogren and Gerald Robison. Actually, I want my people to read this.

Now Tag 5 people:I must pass on this. I lower my sceptre and retire for the day.