Well, everybody has had at least some thoughts about the Republican dominance on November 5th. If the Democratic Party does not wish to become irrelevant, it must discontinue its close association with moral relativism, and the attendant hostility toward Christianity (the real kind, not Bishop Spong) and Judaism (that one's for the morally bankrupt "academic Left"). More striking is the far left's tendency to rush to the defense of dictators and other wicked men. John Leo points to an inability to make moral distictions as the defining characteristic of the far left. Hitchens' departure from the Nation magazine should be setting off alarms everywhere on that side of the spectrum. But as long as Chomsky carries more weight with leftists than does Al Gore, for example, I hope you like Republicans, because it will be a long time in the wilderness.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments