October 22, 2007
I was allocating funds from the recently-acquired paycheck and had finished that for the night---never enough for all line items, but that's why one budgets---and trundled off to bed. I sat down to read this evening's devotional from The Upper Room, as I have for years at this point. Finances were, literally, the last thing I had thought about before climbing the stairs.
And then this evening's reading is Saint Mark, Chapter 12 vv. 41-44. Were this the original Mobile Suit Gundam from the late 1970s, I bet that the Newtype flash would have played in the background.
I have of course included ten percent of net income---see here for an alternative viewpoint---but when one of the major calculations of the evening concerned the percentage, shortly followed by Jesus' harsh analysis, er, one of my particular religious persuasion starts to wonder.
(Mud in your eye, Hitchens, Sam Harris, and the rest of you atheistic lot; give my regards to whatever circle of hell y'all wind up assigned to.)
At least one meaning is implicit---carve your percentage off the gross, not the net. Others may come to me as I think about it. Either way, one gets the sense that the ol' ELF receiver's buzzer may have rung.
Posted by: Country Pundit at
10:52 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.
July 10, 2007
"The sign of God is that you will be led where you did not plan to go."
It occurred to me that my present circumstance must definitely be the working of the Almighty, because I certainly did not plan to be in the straits that I'm in. Now, whether I had a hand in arriving here is a separate inquiry, but this must indeed be something that is part of the divine plan. Hooray?
2. The Upper Room devotional for 08 July 2007 is not directly on point, but with the foregoing quote in my mind, the following occurred to me after reading it:
"God does not tell stories of 'Once upon a time they lived happily ever after'. That's not His narrative style. Instead, when problems arise, persevere! Fight on! Your struggle may be an integral part of a larger narrative."
Things happen. But like the devotional says, we don't have to be perfect for the Almighty to work in and through our lives. What threatens to overwhelm you today may be the experience that guides you to victory in the future.
I thought about my quote---hastily scribbled on a notepad---over the course of the day, and I was reminded of the trials of the great heroes and heroines of the Bible. David didn't exactly walk into the local palace, proclaim himself king of the Israelites, and live forever with his saints to reign. Nuh uh. Elijah suffered a fair amount of anguish and trouble during the reign of Ahab & Jezebel. But what happened? He came out on top. You could ask the local prophets of Baal, had any of them survived the day. In other words, just because there's a rough patch doesn't mean that life is fast aground somewhere along Cape Hatteras.
I don't for a minute think that I'm in the line of David, Elijah, or any other of the greats of the Judeo-Christian tradition. (My luck, I'd be the wiseacre who went ahead and threw the first stone at the condemned prostitute, and would be struck dead or something.) That being said, perhaps their stories are valuable markers for me, and for anyone else who has found themselves in the doldrums of life that occasionally engulf all peoples.
So, what does one do? You fight. Keep showing up every single day and sooner or later, the bad guys---define them any way you want to---may forget to take the field and then, you win. It's a test of will, really. It costs your opposition just as much to keep showing up day after day. Like Steve Prefontaine used to tell himself, "The other guy's hurting just as bad as you are, or worse."
Posted by: Country Pundit at
01:51 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 480 words, total size 3 kb.
PP, 
DD, 
, 
), June 09, 2005
As Admiral J.T. Kirk will put it in about two hundred and eighty years, "Here it comes."
My opinion is best put it in the form of a question: Why is it that I'm supposed to suck it up every time that some half-wit artist slurs my faith on my dime, but yet I'm supposed to understand and approve of Islamist "rage" when there are allegations that maybe a copy of the Islamic central text got flushed? I sense a great dichotomy in the Force. Ahem.
I'm not writing about it because I don't care. A loathsome "artist" named Andres Serrano used Federal funds from the National Endowment for the Arts to create a work named "Piss Christ", wherein he filled a glass with his urine and then dipped a Roman Catholic crucifix into it.1 There was of course outrage at this work, apparently led by Senators Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and Alphonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.). Naturally, the defense was centered around "artistic freedom" and the like; those who opposed this blasphemous and vile work were labeled as neanderthals who wanted to crush the freedom of expression, or something like it.
It's been nearly twenty years, but I daresay that the New York Times et cetera were in the vanguard of those howling "oppression" because Helms et al suggested that perhaps the Federal dollar should not be spent on such things. The "artsy" types back in my home town certainly would have rallied in defense of the artist, because there's a hidden clause in the Constitution that says that art, so long as it is offensive to Christians, is always good. That which offends the public morality of Christians is good, if you will.2
The same controversy arose in the City of New York back in 1999, when Chris Ofili produced and exhibited a work that consisted of the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, festooned with elephant manure. Then-NYC mayor Rudolph Guiliani publicly suggested that the grant for the Brooklyn Museum ought to be pulled. The American Civil Liberties Union of course swung into injunctive action, doing its evil best to defend this blasphemous work.3 Once again, the refrain was that Christians should get over it, that it's no big deal that two of the more central figures in the Christian pantheon are defaced for the sake of art. "Deal with it, you silly Christians! It's not important!"
It is with the memories of this in my mind that I approach the stories of Koranic desecration and the reports of rioting.4
Much has been said by a variety of people about how it is a great tragedy that the Islamic central text. This has come from curious quarters, indeed. The same quarters that would suggest that I, as a Christian, have no right to complain about the "Piss Christ" are now suggesting that the Koran deserves some sort of protection because a bunch of suspected terrorists and/or Islamist combatants consider it an important text. In other words, I am supposed to shudder with rage because a guard at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, might not have treated this text with appropriate deference.5
I think not.
If I'm supposed to applaud and genuflect my deeply held personal beliefs to the altar of artistic freedom when important aspects of my faith are tarred in the manner of Serrano and Ofili, then the "Arab street" can kindly do likewise. Therefore, I offer the following advice to the Department of Defense:
Find a Mason jar amongst the troops at Guantanamo Bay. Fill it with urine, then dunk the Koran. Dub it the "Piss Koran", and have someone claim it as their artistic work. Give them some money from the NEA, get some general officer to write a memo opposing it, and talk Sean Hannity & Bill O'Reilly into attacking the work on their national radio programs. I guarantee that within a day, the intelligentsia of this nation will be defending the right of our warrior artists to their artistic freedoms. Moreover, the inevitable riots in the Arab world will be met with a sneering "tut tut" from the opinion-makers on high. It will allow us to make use of previously unexploited resources in prosecuting the war effort, and I would think that such would be a good thing.
To rip off a quote from Admiral Motti, "Artistic freedom is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it."
----
This post was inspired by the following entry at SoxBlog. I really need to find that song he's referencing.
1 Roman Catholic crucifixes in general (and this one in particular) consist of a representation of the cross along with a figure of Jesus Christ. This is of course different from those that Protestants would be more familiar with, which do not include a figure of Jesus Christ.
2 Additional witness to this is born by the divergent reactions to Martin Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. The former was hailed by the cultural elites, while the latter was reviled.
3 In the process of researching this piece, I ran across an article from Inkwell relating the story of how the work no longer exists, due to a fire in a storage house. Ha ha.
4 I am unmoved by riots in response to the so-called "desecration" of the Islamic central text. These people will riot for any thing at any time; they have effectively cried 'wolf' ten or fifteen too many times. In retrospect, I would suggest that the the Islamic demonstration probably lost its moral effectiveness some time around the publication of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. As P.J. O'Rourke (approximately) put it, "A book critical of Islam was written by an Indian national and published in the United Kingdom. Naturally, the demonstrators burned the American flag outside American embassies."
5 When news of this broke, I asked myself the following question: "If someone was trying to interrogate you, and urinated upon a copy of the King James Version, how would you respond?" After a few seconds, it occurred to me: "I'd shrug. If they want to go ahead and punch their tickets on the Express Elevator to Hell, then let them. Considering what I know about torture methods used on prisoners, that's pretty tame."
Posted by: Country Pundit at
02:04 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1085 words, total size 7 kb.
April 19, 2005
Oddly enough, my last entry on the site was discussing what would happen if Cardinal Ratzinger were to be elected. Heh, curiouser and curiouser. Unfortunately, the Ratzinger Fan Club is running the 503 error for too much access.
CNN's coverage is complaining about his opposition to homosexual activists and his "Cardinal No" positions; aw, too bad.
Congratulations to the new Holy Father of the Roman church.
Posted by: Country Pundit at
12:48 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.
April 15, 2005
Having spent my entire life as a Protestant, ensconsced within the United Methodist Church, I was by breeding reflexively against that sort of thing. After all, I've been conditioned to consider myself, at some level, the final arbiter of my own theology. Arrogant? Probably, but it would seem to comport with essential points raised in Martin Luther's original complaints against the Roman church. But enough about that.
Here we are in April, 2005. John Paul is dead, and I thought that there could be no chance for any future personal merger with the Catholics. It appears that I might have been wrong. If this Joseph, Cardinal Ratzinger of Germany, gets the papal nod, the Roman church might buy itself another five to ten years of opportunity in my book. Many of yesterday's Corner postings about the chances of Cardinal Ratzinger becoming the next Pope piqued my interest and re-opened the question of Catholic merger.
Why is this? The collection of insults I've heard arrayed against him seem to be the right ones. "Intolerant!" "Divisive!" "Anti-choice!"1 "Fails to recognize the role of women in the priesthood!" "Stands with hands on hips!" Well, that last one's more for Scott Bolton---thumbs meh to him---but you get the picture. The chattering class of single-interest groups that annoy the dickens out of me on mattters religious seem to despise Cardinal Ratzinger, and that's enough to toll the statute of limitations on the possibility of merging with the Romans.
Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said before Dr. Gonzo mumbled something about the White Rabbit whilst in the bathtub waving a knife. Fans of Cardinal Ratzinger have assembled a website for him; view the Cardinal Ratzinger Fanclub. more...
Posted by: Country Pundit at
09:51 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 598 words, total size 4 kb.
March 01, 2005
This is probably a monstrous oversimplification of the Osteen Doctrine, but I'm not writing to kick the man. Rather, I am writing to point out something that more or less wandered onto the radar scope last night, and I thought it interesting that, within a week of my dismissal of this man, the blog of a Methodist was addressing him.
Anyways, the discussion of Mr. Osteen is put together by a fellow named John at Locusts and Honey, and you can read the whole thing here. I recommend that you do.
John's article sent me off to a lot of other sites (cursed trait of the blog world!) where I read various articles by other authors. I can say this: A lot of high-grade neurons were burnt discussing Mr. Osteen. This is a good thing, because I don't have the theological background to do much more than have my suspicions about him.
In my case, it seems that Mr. Osteen is simply the latest individual/movement to tall within my perpetual complaint of effectiveness versus 'bad idea'. Me, I'm a country Christian with a simple faith, but I've got a hankering for a fancy church and an ornate service. I don't do the whole charismatic worship thing, and contemporary services leave me cold. I've grumbled and griped for years over the increasing tendency of my weekly service to resemble something seen on television, but there's a catch: I am not inherently hostile to other means of worship and evangelism, so long as they are successful. In this instance, success is defined as success in the Christian mission, i.e. the winning of souls to the cause of Christ.
In this instance, I don't know if Mr. Osteen is turning a profit in that regard, which is the only thing I really care about. From all appearances, he is turning a personal financial profit, but the people upstairs do not seem to be concerned about that sort of thing. Their performance metrics do not take into account the personal fortune when determining success, and perhaps Mr. Osteen should remember that.
In any event, it does appear that he'll have to go into the great gray area of my religious viewpoint dubbed "Effect Uncertain", since I don't divine any specific negative effect, only generalized concerns.
Posted by: Country Pundit at
10:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.
May 04, 2004
(Pittsburgh, PA) The General Conference of the United Methodist Church has decided to join a boycott of Taco Bell because of complaints from Florida tomato pickers that they don't make enough money and are treated badly. Every four years, the church leaders meet to discuss important issues and pass resolutions for action. Current action will be against Taco Bell. It's not clear which fruit and vegetable pickers will prompt the next boycott, but there are many to choose from. There's the banana pickers in Guatemala, the coffee pickers in Columbia and West Africa, the citrus pickers in the Rio Grande Valley, and so on.
And the local folks wonder why I restrict my activity to small potatoes giving and the occasional speech. Enh. I bet we'll see a resolution saying that George W. Bush is the anti-Christ, assuming the leftists in the UMC believe in the latter.
Posted by: Country Pundit at
10:52 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
"I really liked the surprise ending!"
-- Jessica Simpson, on seeing The Passion
She's probably doing pretty well in terms of money at this point, but good grief. If she were known for sarcastic or otherwise witty remarks, this remark would have been amusing and worth a positive laugh. The light in which it was probably presented earns a derisive snort. That is to say, "laughing at you, not laughing with you." Just another example of how surface beauty (and a lot of it; she's a looker!) doesn't mean there's a brain beneath.
Tip of the Wisconsin hat to Spare Change.
UPDATE: An eagle-eyed reader has written to note that they think it's satire. I thought it was a plausible remark, given her Chicken of the Sea comment. As to the truth of the matter, I have no idea. Thanks to my correspondent for taking the time to write.
Posted by: Country Pundit at
01:28 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.
March 30, 2004
A key talking point that keeps coming up is the need of Methodists to, as the latest article puts it, "[stay] in Christian conversation". There's been a distinct whine from officialdom about the need for everyone to remain civil and let's all be friends while the ship sinks. This fits into the model I've generally observed:
-Supporters of Karen Dammann, who are generally favorable to homosexuality, "tolerance", and "diversity". They generally don't get wrapped up in this resurrection of Christ nonsense, and prefer to focus upon political action.
-"Centrists", for lack of a better word, who tell everyone to be nice. "Stop shooting the nice xenomorphs, Corporal Hicks. If you wouldn't shoot it, it wouldn't bleed all over you as it tore your head off."
-Supporters of the traditional UMC. They're usually labeled 'fundamentalists' or something similar, always a pejorative.
You can, of course, guess which bloc I fall into; I'm squarely behind backing the UMC's on-paper laws. To me, the Karen Dammann thing was yet another event where left-wing social revolutionaries shirked their institutional duty in order to advance a social agenda that was incompatible with the establishment they swore to uphold.
At this point in time, it is difficult to imagine why I ought to be "civil" to someone who holds a diametrically opposed view of things, and who would run over me if given a chance. Charles Schulz's Peanuts used to have an on-going gag about Snoopy and the Cat Next Door. In an anthology I've got from the 1970s, Snoopy extends a paw with the proverbial olive branch to the Cat, but pulls back a mauled wreck. I get that kind of feeling from assessing the other side.
They're not interested in peaceful discussion nor are they particularly interested in anything but what they want, because they "know" they're right. This is actually a bad thing. Just "knowing in your heart" that you're right and therefore anything is justified is a dangerous scenario. After all, Adolf Hitler didn't get up in the morning to the sounds of George Thorogood singing "Bad auf der Bone"; the Little Corporal thought he was doing the right thing. And no, I'm not trying to smear the other side as having common cause with Adolf Hitler, but I bet their ranks will call me a Nazi simply because I think we ought to stick to the established rules.
At any rate, I don't see how maintaining "civility" is going to do much more than make me fight with one hand tied behind my back. The other guys are going to fight as dirtily as possible, but lo if I retaliate proportionately, then it's Yankee Air Pirate time in the UMC. This seems like the Geneva Convention and other assorted rules of war in that they're great if everyone follows them, but the one who decides not to is in a good position to win, especially when the referees let them them do it. In a way, it's like the conflict in Vietnam: The North Vietnamese were free to do whatever they wanted---rape, torture, murder, assassination, the like---but U Thant (or whoever) forbid that we use B-52D Stratofortresses against their military-industrial complex.
The North Vietnamese ran a pretty intelligent PR campaign and it worked very well on what Ben Kenobi would have called simple minds. The mess of it is that traditionalists in the UMC are in the same boat as the United States back then. A favorable media establishment reports all claims of the pro-homosexual forces with great gusto and scorn for our side. The other side demands, and has an ally in a mindless center, that we play fair while they don't.
Augh. After a long conversation with a friend of mine, we came to the conclusion that I'm far more comfortable with a 'humans fix it' approach instead of hitting the floor to send some 'knee-mail' to the Almighty for help. I've read a couple of message boards discussing this topic that seem to reflect a similar split in attitudes.OK, so I'm going down the same path as others, but I still am not able to see the value of being polite while being punched in the mouth.
1 On background: The United Methodist Church (hereinafter UMC) is governed by a set of rules called the Discipline. While I've yet to buy a print copy of the thing, I will get it sooner or later and I'll see about providing the relevant information here.
These rules proscribe openly homosexual men or women from serving in the ministry. Recently, the Reverend Karen Dammann wrote a letter to her bishop (two steps up the ladder and who head the UMC's national administrative regions) proclaiming her practice of homosexuality. As such, she was brought before a jury of churchmen in the area for trial, but was acquitted.
Posted by: Country Pundit at
02:10 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 843 words, total size 5 kb.
March 20, 2004
It is, arguably, one of if not the finest movies I've ever seen. From an artistic point of view, it is an excellently-made film.1 From a content-focused perspective, it is an excellently-made film. The overwhelming reaction that I had to it was, "You are not worthy of this man's sacrifice."
I'll leave it to the cadres of religious bloggers to nitpick over the import of the foregoing statement. At the same time, let me try and inject a bit of something that I hope C.S. Lewis might have said: "Well, of course. That's the very point that you and the rest of us are unworthy and that since we didn't deserve Christ's sacrifice, then it could only be an act of supreme love et cetera, so therefore kindly cease your quibbling."
Now, to the various numbered points: more...
Posted by: Country Pundit at
10:14 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1914 words, total size 11 kb.
November 29, 2003
Members of Egypt's persecuted Coptic Christian minority have been putting icthyus (fish) bumper stickers on their cars, announcing their Christian identities. Muslims have responded by putting hungry shark stickers on their bumpers.
The full story is available here from a source of unknown reliability, but there seem to be ties to the Associated Press and Media General, which does happen to have a significant presence in Virginia as a news-services company in television and print media.
Part of me is amused by this response. On the surface (no pun intended) this would be a cute little game of one-upsmanship between fans or something in another one of those ridiculous college rivalries held dear by so many booze-swilling alums. I can't help but chuckle when I think of it. If my undergraduate institution's enemies had a fish for a logo, I'd certainly think about a shark motif to show the Way Things Will Be.
On the other hand, being cognizant of the context in which this occurs makes me a little less likely to be charitable when Egypt comes crying for American dollars. One response that comes to mind is to think that there's something akin to Klansmen displaying a noose on their vehicles in response to a theoretical symbol of something (oh, say that distinctly colored cloth---kinte?---that is somehow tied to their history/heritage) on vehicles.
If you accept that the Coptic Christians of Egypt are indeed a persecuted minority1 then these sharks are downright threatening. I don't like this, no sir, not one bit. It smacks of anti-Christian activity, or at the very least the deliberate creation of a hostile environment. I would be less certain of my finding if the Islamics had taken to displaying a crescent-and-star or something, but who in the world worships a shark? That doesn't have too many uses, and it does signal some sort of danger.
The historical parallel between Rome and Egypt is chilling---once again, people united by display of the second-most popular historical Christian symbol are under the boot of an oppressive government. This time, however, they're not alone, or so I would hope. Ideally, ol' Hosni Mubarak would get the proverbial horse head-in-the-bed or a pleasantly worded suggestion that it would be in his best interest to back off on policies that persecute these Coptic Christians.
I'm never happy when I see Christians under the boot of government and I very rarely excuse it. (Befuddled leftists who are more akin to apologists for Communism or the like, protesting American deployment of the Pershing II while the Soviets deploy the SS-20 generally fall within the latter class, if disapproval or arrest after illegal entry can be described as being 'under the boot'.)
Things like this will continue to happen, and I suppose that for the moment it can be excused, but if this erupts into open violence, I expect the bloody government over there to crack down. I wish I could follow that up with a threat of American intervention, but for a variety of reasons that threat could never be made, much less followed through on.
Ende.
1 I'm not offering this for the truth of the matter but rather to show that the statement has been made. Evidence-law bloggers, descend and shred me on this, since the Federal rules of evidence are arcane to me.
Posted by: Country Pundit at
03:36 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 574 words, total size 4 kb.
November 12, 2003
The name of Spong is enough to draw cheers in some circles and snarls of revulsion in others. The Sunday school class I attended prior to graduation from college certainly had people who knew the name of Spong, and they weren't particularly pleased with him. Suffice it to say that Bishop Spong (this may be an inaccurate title; I'm a Methodist and we don't get wrapped up in all this quasi-Romish folderol in terms of titles) is more than likely an avid supporter of V. Eugene Robinson's advancement in the Episcopal hierarchy. (The Country Pundit is not, for a variety of reasons.)
The ad's money quote asks, "ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS STILL RELEVANT?" I'm from a small Southern town, hence the name 'Country Pundit'. I'm not used to sitting around pondering the relevancy of the Decalogue, but rather pondering just how I'm going to bring my actions into compliance with its contents. So, after I wiped a Tea Leoni-ish look of bewilderment (I saw it once on an ad for her NBC program back in the 1990s; can't find a shot of it) I decided to read the ad and click the link. My next reaction was to scoff: "You'd just as soon ask whether gravity was still relevant."
The ad promises "NEW CHRISTIANITY FOR A NEW WORLD" as "Bishop Spong Explores Biblical Truth in our Modern World". Pardon me for asking the obvious, but what new world? Did we colonize Mars or something when I was asleep in my carrel at school earlier? Furthermore, other than the fact that we're 1900-odd years away from the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, what exactly is so very different about our world that the denizens of the first century A.D. wouldn't understand after a bit of catch-up? Barbarians at the gate, a savage hatred of Christians among the upper class, and the army sent hither and yon defending the national interest. The more things change, the more they stay the same. It would seem that the single most important constant here is mankind. Yep, mankind. The same craven, fallen creature that departed the Garden of Eden a long time ago after noshing on the fruit of the Tree of Life. (See the book of Genesis, chapter 3.) The only way that that changes (for Gentiles, that is) is through the redemptive and life-transforming grace available for free through Jesus Christ. I consider it of minor significance that I don't see the name of "John Spong" listed anywhere in my copy of the King James Version or my battered New International Version.
Anyways, Spong's particular straw man is 'fundamentalism'. You know, wherein Christians hijack airliners and fly them into large buildings. Wait, that's Islamist fundamentalism. Sorry; the way most of the Left talks, America has more to fear from a bunch of devoted Christians than it does a cell of Islamist kamikaze pilots. 'Fundamentalism' is probably described as "disagreement with Bishop Spong" so that means that much of Africa and its Anglicans are "fundamentalists", along with the Southern Baptist Convention, the Roman Catholic Church which recognizes the authority of Rome and the Pope, me, and millions of other people who don't go around tinkering with a divinely-inspired book to create "progressive Christianity".
Here's the kicker, under "PRAISE FOR BISHOP SPONG": “…Spong provides enlightened reading for people who no longer believe in the God of Sunday school and are looking for something else to give their lives meaning.” This comes from the San Francisco Chronicle. Huh? If you no longer believe in the God of Sunday school, you do need to see a preacher man, but I think you'd need to go towards God, not into someone who I'd describe as a servant of the very devil of Hell.
To wrap up an irate post, I'll say this: It's a sign of Western civilizational superiority that Spong hasn't been killed by an angry mob on the orders of a bearded half-blind cleric who sits in judgment in a court of life and death that has no sanction of the governed. However, the Coulterish streak in me wants desperately to dare Bishop Spong to pull this kind of a stunt on al-Jazeera, where he promises a "NEW ISLAM FOR THE NEW WORLD", and await the response. John, I wouldn't plan on showing my face for the next 25 years or so. He can take comfort in the fact that Episcopalians don't issue fatwas, although I'm tempted to ask Rowan Williams to make an exception.
At any rate, the Christian church has endured many things over the course of two thousand years, and I suppose it will weather Spong and his heresy. This will, of course, irritate Spong, V. Eugene Robinson, and the Purple Pundit Who Shall Not Be Named, but go figure. My religious forebears faced down Nero and others, and some nitwit bishop doesn't match that kind of threat.
UPDATE: I promised the ad, and here it is:
Posted by: Country Pundit at
12:54 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 907 words, total size 5 kb.
November 05, 2003
However, the term 'Crusader' apparently maintains a more ancient meaning to the people of the Middle East who consider themselves to be followers of the prophet Mohammed. They of course think of the Knights Templar and others like them, because the Crusades are the Big Example of the evil foreigner Western devils kicking the Islamic door in and laying the smack down. Of course, they kinda sorta got even by taking over much of Spain and so forth, but lay that aside.
Cold Fury has an letter posted in the Pakistan Christian Post by a chap who basically calls Osama bin Laden out for single combat. The man, who signs himself "Chevalier James R. Reese, Grand Prior of the United States", seems to come across as serious. If I were to evaluate this on the level of playground machismo, it does the job. Chevalier Reese goes way beyond the level of remarks made by Lieutenant General W.G. Boykin in framing the war in religious terms, but with far more uh, fervor, or something. He certainly considers himself to be in a line with the men who rode east with Richard the Lion-Hearted---notice the phrase "When we faced Saladin".
I was under the impression that, in the intervening eight hundred years or so, none of the major groups of knights who went on the Crusades had survived. I'm pretty sure that a couple of them ran afoul of various pseudo-Catholic monarchies and were gobbled up for their real estate holdings and their bank accounts. Needless to say, I'll be digging about to see what I can find out in regards to the modern day knights. I ran a few terms through Google and it seems that maybe this guy's a Mason or something. That's a kettle I won't be plunging into, because I'm not eager to muck about in the fetid swamps of conspiracists et al, but this guy seems vaguely interesting so I'll keep at it.
I'd pay good money to see this guy put a whipping on Osama, courtesy of Christendom. And yes, I'd accept the chivalric granting of mercy if requested, but I'd be more interested in seeing OBL hacked to bits.
As Drudge might say, this is a developing story and further information will be related in this space. more...
Posted by: Country Pundit at
02:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.
58 queries taking 0.0542 seconds, 150 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
