Sorry Pat

Pat Hynes, the man behind Crush Kerry and other great bits of conservative interweb action is at it again with his claim that the christian conservatives aren't being treated special enough.

What these fellows are really saying is that they wish there was no such thing as a “values voter” or a “moral values voter.” All four of the above named pundits, as I’ve pointed out before, oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. Two of them—Will and Krauthammer—do so for a thoughtful, but unpersuasive, reason: a constitutional amendment is not desirable and perhaps even unnecessary in this particular circumstance.

Pat goes off on a latest George Will article as the start of all this so lets crack up the George Will.

This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to . . . well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots.

Will's argument here was the term "Values Voter" Is an in-accurate term and one that is descriptive of all voters.

Today's liberal agenda includes preservation, even expansion, of the welfare state in its current configuration in order to strengthen an egalitarian ethic of common provision. Liberals favor taxes and other measures to produce a more equal distribution of income. They may value equality indiscriminately, but they vote their values.

Among the various flavors of conservatism, there is libertarianism that is wary of government attempts to nurture morality and there is social conservatism that says unless government nurtures morality, liberty will perish. Both kinds of conservatives use their votes to advance what they value.......

Attempts to assign values-seriousness can get complicated: Freedom and happiness are valuable. Arguably, governmental actions that did much to increase freedom and happiness in the past half-century were state laws liberalizing divorce. These made important contributions to the emancipation of men and especially women from mistaken marriages.

And why is the way George Will asked this question important? Because the two questions on polls are never the same

I supported X because he represents my values is never the same as I supported X because he supports my position on gay marriage, abortion, goes to church, and prays daily.

When the polls are broken down for the later assumption it is never as large as the former assumption.

Its about polls and how they spin and twist words around Pat. This is not to say that Religously conservative aren't a signifigant group. It is however saying that polls show that this group may be more politically deep in their feelings on issues then some folks *(I'm talkin to you Pat)* may think

Sorry Bombtruck

But its Twofer Wensday for you

Making this post an almost trifecta for me is that Bombtruck and I talked this out over YM.

But first let me put out the Official Disclaimer.

I am not a Christian, though I'd imagine I was technically one on paper when I was real little and my parents needed free babysitting. Never been baptized and until a masonic ritual never had any ritual experience remotely like the sacrament of wine and bread.

Furthermore I do not believe there is evidence for a Historical Jesus of Nazareth. Now their may have been some person to whom the Jesus in the bible was based upon, but not the literal person in the bible.

Further Furthermore the greatest condemnation of Christ being the Messiah can be found in the bible if you know where to look, so using the bible to prove Jesus wasn't married is dubious as I can use the bible to “Prove” Jesus wasn't the messiah.

However if their was not a real flesh and blood Jesus of Nazareth the impact the man, his example, and the church spawned from people who believe in him on the whole has been so great for humanity and society that it really doesn't matter if he was ever real.

So.... lets move on.

What does it say about a Hollywood production like "The Da Vinci Code" that bashes belief in Christianity that it gets THIS kind of reaction from people who are most likely to buy its premise?

-HOW- Bombtruck?

Now lets take a look at Christianity as a whole, there is a very hard case to make that the book and movie at its thesis makes MODERN Christianity in any way invalid, or bashes the belief. Indeed the movie is very gnostic in its fundamental themes. “Secret Knowledge”

You cannot be justly bashed if you don't know the Secret. The Protagonists work very hard to find the Secret.... so again that by its nature isn't a Bash

Now if you are the Catholic Church and especially if you are the Opus Dei you might have a case to say the book is Bashing you. But the film and book -themselves- do not Bash Christianity in any real sense of the word unless you believe Jesus being married, and having a Bloodline attacks Christianity.

So lets first put aside how it isn't biblical (I could make an excellent case reading the bible and using historical context that -a- Jesus was married, and he was probably married to -b- the Beloved Disciple. Which would not be a major stretch -but a non scriptural stretch- to put Mary Magdeline in that role)

But lets step away from the bible for a moment

IF Jesus was married and had a family, would that take away one iota from the message Jesus provided to the world?

Anyone who wants to answer this needs to know that I do not consider scriptural evidence of why Jesus wasn't married as a valid answer. Because we are not talking about what the bible actually says for a moment, we are talking about a much larger issue. Does a celibate Jesus end up being a Stronger and more valid Jesus?

The idea of a “Conspiracy” to hide this fact from the Christian community as a whole is largely asinine and easily refuted when you actually read how doctrines were established. But lets take a moment aside again.

Lets say this is 150% true for a moment, how does that damage the Christianity you feel today?

And for this please don't quote scriptures to me. I am asking for an argument why flawed men obscuring facts about Jesus would impinge on the value of the message. If as many have argued that the bible is complete and influenced by god, perhaps God finds the fact Jesus married and produced offspring as irrelevant to future believers. And as God creates all things both good and evil, it is not a stretch to say that god inspired them to write that which was important from their highest faculties and allowed them to ignore that which their lowest faculties despised.

So you need to do better then go with a divine inspiration argument, because the idea of a conspiracy to hide those facts can be entirely within the realm of divine inspiration.

So to Quote Bombtruck again

What this is about is a ficticious movie being played up as some sort of proof Christianity is a fraud.

again Does it? does the fact jesus had a wife being omited from the bible make the bible or any of the subsiquent developments of the Church a fraud?

Or does a Christian community which feels it is being persecuted, and having its values maligned and marginalized see devil's around every corner?

And in the end.... the movie, like the book SUCKED.

and this protest movement, like the protest movement for "The Passion of the Christ" will make a bad movie HUGELY profitable.

and this ignores what I feel should be the larger and more important point for the Christians today.

Vast numbers of Christians out there in TV land are ignorant of the Bible and ignorant of what their faith stands for. They don't know why things are the way they are. And if you try to refute me on that i will raise you the collected “DaVinci” works of Dan Brown. Clearly people want to know why the church says what it says and believes what it believes. So instead of allowing an author of fiction to fill that vacuum while you raise tons of money to protest him, maybe you should TEACH your faith.

The early church struggled with many of the very fundamental ideas and concepts Christians today either struggle with in their day to day lives, or poo-poo out of hand. Would not the faith be richer if they could be taught that the earliest followers of Christ had these exact same struggles of faith?Would it not benefit them to see how these struggles were resolved by these earliest Christians to not only help guide them, but to help them build their resolve in their own faith?

Wouldn't teaching them WHY it is important that Jesus became man (and was not a man who became god) to the theology of the bible, and to their own lives benefit the faithful more then wasting money attacking an author of a really poor work of fiction.

When we look at the Churches that are beating the odds we see Churches that not only demand a more active Christian life style of their faithful, they also guide their faithful into a deeper knowledge and faith in the bible and their religion. All this flapping about Dan Brown is part of everything that is wrong with Christianity. Instead of fighting ignorance with education, it fights ignorance with rhetoric. It doesn't place a call on Christians to deepen their faith. And it aids the moneychangers in the Christian temples of the day.

Do what I plan to do. Ignore the awful movie by Dan Brown. If you ignore it... it will fade into the obscurity it deserves.

Welcome to Blogging Bombtruck

My good buddy over at Ankle Biting Pundits "Bombtruck" has been added to their staff. And he has also posted on what I think is the most intresting bit-o-news of the day.

Now much as I have pointed out that Pat Hynes may be the most wrong person in blogging ever.... I am going to have to give Bombtruck his blogging intro by dragging his post around a bit

so... on with the bloggy

Does anyone really want to try trusting North Korea in any kind of negotiation at this point? And does it really send any strong message to Iran that we're thinking of doing this? Boy our government can be a glutton for punishment and stupidity no matter who's in charge.

Ok, in US foriegn polciy their is the position of "pragmatism" and this is a play to the Pragmatic... but let me first show you whats hidden in the NYTs

North Koreans have long demanded a peace treaty, which would replace the 1953 armistice ending the Korean War.

The North Koreans have made a peace guarentee a major concession point due to the fact they feel surrounded by folks who'd rather blow them up then look at them. The fact they could no longer maintain their massive military feasibly was part -why- they pursued Nuclear Weapons as a deterant.

The theory here is that by eliminating the need for them (by their perception) to have this massive buildup you may be able to make something happen.

The decision to consider a change may have been influenced in part by growing concerns about Iran's nuclear program. One senior Asian official who has been briefed on the administration's discussions about what to do next said, "There is a sense that they can't leave Korea out there as a model for what the Iranians hope to become — a nuclear state that can say no to outside pressure."

This also has a secondary play factor which the NYTs fails to mention.

If Bush has Two Wars "On the oven" in the perception of the UN voters it would make his ability to act strongly on Iran difficult, if not impossible from a International Standpoint. However by making peace with North Korea it becomes harder for the "war monger" them to work within the UN

As described by administration officials, none of whom would speak on the record about deliberations inside the White House, Mr. Bush's aides envision starting negotiations over a formal peace treaty that would include the original signatories of the armistice — China, North Korea and the United States, which signed on behalf of the United Nations. They would also add South Korea, now the world's 11th-largest economy, which declined to sign the original armistice.

In the article it talks about not having regime change and de-nuclearization as part of the same policy. Here however people on the President's team have some smart thoughts coming on.

China as it was one of the agressor powers that is now a world power could be arm twisted to with the US and South Korea bring about real prospects of reconstruction in North Korea in exchange for concessions. And I would If I were a negotiator put into the peace treaty requirements to be monitored and managed by the South Koreans on openess and bilateral issues relative to the two nations.

Even if peace treaty talks started, officials insisted, those sanctions would continue. A month ago, Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, told a small audience of foreign policy experts that the sanctions were "the first thing we have done that has gotten their attention," several participants in the meeting said.

Some intelligence officials say they believe the protests may have arisen in part because they affected a secretive operation in North Korea called Unit 39 that finances the personal activities of Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, providing the money he spends for his entertainment and to win the loyalty of others in the leadership.

This is the hugest Carrott and the Administration is keeping this off the table. The Criminal enterprises used to finance the evil government in North Korea will still have its feat to the fire which gives the US a tool in both sets of Negotiations.

This isn't an exact science to be sure but in the world of diplomacy this is a very good move.