I’m really mad today. And before I tell you why, let me preface it with this: I hope that RINO (let the reader understand) “Democrat” John McCain politically carves Obama in bite-sized, quivering little progressive pieces. Now, formalities aside, I don’t give a rat’s behind that Mr. Obama’s middle name is Hussein. It does not evoke fear in me, nor conjure a memory of a deposed Iraqi dictator (not a lasting one, anyway). I do not believe that his election will bring Sharia law into the center of US life. If he says he’s not a Muslim, I believe him. And there is NO reason whatsoever to continue stating his full name in the hope of scaring people into not voting for him. I can think of a hundred reasons to vote against Senator Barack Obama; his connection to Islam (by family, or the technicalities of conversion from Islam) is not one of them. Some guy named Cunningham brought this out again. They say Cunningham is a conservative radio talk show host. Spewing hostility in the direction of a Democratic candidate for president does not automatically make one conservative, and that he blathers on the airwaves only means that the fans of the medium need to self-regulate. As a semi-related aside, it is quite legitimate to ask whether those past connections to Islam could affect how extremists view him. Daniel Pipes, a noted scholar on the Middle East, and onetime presidential appointee, addresses such issues here. He’s a little harsher on Obama re: openness on this issue than I am, but an interesting piece nonetheless. I’ve never heard Obama or his supporters use McCain’s middle name. Because nobody cares until you are president. (Or nobody should, in any case.) McCain was absolutely right to disavow the comments.
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