The Bosque Boys

All cultures are equally valid and must be respected and affirmed. No culture is superior to another culture. To suggest otherwise is intolerance and bigotry, and will not be tolerated. Here in the United States we should create a multicultural society in which all groups may practice their own culture freely.

(pause for a brain gargle rinse and spit after writing the above)

So, pc multiculturalists, you want a U.S. where all groups are free to express their cultures. Are you ready for hangings of accused gays in Detroit and Jersey City? Are you willing to live in any country in the world and raise your children there? Say, Iran?

Consider this story from Iran on the execution of a man accused of same-sex sex. From Gateway Pundit.

So how come ActUp is not in the streets protesting radical Islam?

And, this story from The Times Online (UK) about a Muslim imam's daughter in Britain who converted to Christianity and now lives in fear of her life under British police protection. The threat to her life comes from her own family. Link from JihadWatch.

I don't think Islam understand the concept of multiculturalism.

This story, from ABC News, reports that one of the preachers under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee is refusing to cooperate. Creflo Dollar (yes, that is correct), has told Senator Grassley to either get a subpoena or refer the matter to the IRS. Other preachers/ministry groups are dragging their feet. At issue is whether these groups are meeting the Federal requirements to maintain their tax-exempt status. Previous post here.

Is this investigation a breach of the Separation of Church and State? Is it an abuse of Federal power? While I am uncomfortable with government investigating religious groups, and understand the possibility of a "chilling effect," it seems to me that the Senate Finance Committee is not overstepping its bounds by conducting this investigation. If a group wants tax-exempt status there are requirements to be met. And just as a non-religious non-profit must follow guidelines on accountability, salaries and perks, etc., so also a religious group.

So long as no Senator either explicitly or implicitly questions doctrines, or any other matter not related to non-profit regulation, I am comfortable with this inquiry.

My new winter coat arrived this morning. It is a well-made brown "barn coat," or "chore coat" as we call it up home. Warm and lightweight, a cotton-duck shell and blanket liner, it looks good and is sturdy, And it was made in America, in Bristol, Tennessee. Customer service was great. Looking at the web site, I could not tell the chest size and arm length of the XL, 2XL, etc. So I called the 800 number. A very nice lady told me the chest measurements off the top of her head; when she could not remember the arm length, she had me wait while she sent and got one my size and measured the sleeves. One of the nicest retail encounters I've had in a while.

The internet is a great way to shop if you are looking for "Made in the USA" items. For many things, a search will turn up something you can use. My coat is a Pointer Brand.

And it cost me $65 with shipping. If I didn't need an X size it would have been a few dollars less.

Buy American. We have workplace safety rules. Environmental regulations. Right to organize. Child labor laws. Minimum wage. All hard-won accomplishments that give us a good quality of life.

For American Union Made, see All American Clothing.

This site lists many sources of American made products.

And right here in Apache, Oklahoma, we have Mo Betta, a small business that makes western shirts right here to custom order. There customers include pro-rodeo cowboys and country singers (including Garth Brooks), but you can get a fairly simple shirt made for about $55.

And, of course, if you buy food grown outside the United States, you do not know what kinds of pesticides or herbicides were used, or how near to harvest they were used. Many, many countries have little pesticide or herbicide regulation.

Barak Obama is now under pressure from LGBT groups because he is reaching out to traditional evangelicals and other conservative Christians. We'll see if Obama will be able to withstand the pressure and include Christians of different views within his campaign. If he can win the Democratic primary, he certainly will need to have broad support to win the general election. LGBT "leaders" seem not to realize that.

Obama's own faith journey certainly resonates with evangelical experience, even if some of his views differ from their own.

. . . And this restlessness – this search for meaning – is familiar to me. I was not raised in a particularly religious household. My father, who I didn't know, returned to Kenya when I was just two. He was nominally a Muslim since there were a number of Muslims in the village where he was born. But by the time he was a young adult, he was an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was one of the most spiritual souls I ever knew. She had this enormous capacity for wonder, and lived by the Golden Rule. But she had a healthy skepticism of religion as an institution. And as a consequence, so did I.
. . .
And it's around this time that some pastors I was working with came up to me and asked if I was a member of a church. "If you're organizing churches," they said, "it might be helpful if you went to church once in a while." And I thought, "Well, I guess that makes sense."

So one Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called "The Audacity of Hope." And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany.

Story from the Biblical Witness website, a group within the United Church of Christ pushing for traditional Christian belief. Obama is a member of a United Church of Christ congregation in Chicago. The UCC officially supports marriage and ordination of those who practice same-sex sex. Earlier post on Obama's religion and the UCC.

Story here on Gateway Pundit. There is a downside to Civil Service job security. And to getting news from headlines.

Bottom line: we don't know any more hard intelligence data than we did in 2005 when it was concluded the Iranians were working on the bomb. The authors of the 2007 report, who concluded that the Iranians are not working on the bomb, are trying to read the mind of the mullahs, and probably not doing a very good job.

The Okie Gardener asserts that Mitt Romney's Mormonism makes his attempt to capture the 08 Republican nomination nearly impossible.

Why?

1. Evangelicals and Mormons are unfriendly competitors for souls in the suburban neighborhoods of the South. More precisely, "conservative and evangelical churches view Mormonism as a non-Christian religion, even terming it a 'cult.'"

2. Any potential explanation of his faith (the "speech") by the candidate will only exacerbate the problem, awakening less vigilant evangelicals to a whole litany of startling idiosyncrasies integral to Mormon worship.

My colleague, the Okie Gardener, is a scholar of American religion, published and respected in his field. On almost all matters in this area of scholarship, I happily defer to his erudition.

However, in the case of Mitt Romney, and how his religion will play in this particular race for the Republican nomination (and his potential subsequent run for the presidency in the general election), I see things a shade differently. Although I expect a candidate other than Romney to win the nomination, I think hostility to his religion will play only a minor role in this contest.

The Speech may work to Romney's advantage.

1. I agree with the assertion that a speech explaining Mormon worship would not be productive, but Romney is assuring us that this speech will not be of that variety. Evidently, tomorrow's address will spotlight the "common cause" among Americans of faith and our "history" of religious tolerance. Evangelicals today are much more accommodating to Catholics and Jews in terms of political partnership. I think Romney can make a strong case for admitting Mormons as full members into that conservative social-political coalition. In a nutshell: clean-cut, straight-arrow Mormons make good neighbors and good partners in conservatism.

2. The speech will be a major political story, with the potential to be a minor cultural event. This address will place Romney's name and campaign front and center for all interested voters. Romney will enjoy a rare opportunity to hold the attention of the very people in America who are most likely to decide the nomination. There is great risk in this gambit; it is a "make or break" outing--but most politicians would love a chance to take this gamble, viewing the potentially huge payoff as well worth braving the less appetizing downsides.

3. How serious is his Mormon Problem? I am disinclined to think an evangelical backlash could ever reach a point to which it will determine the outcome of any primary election in the South. No matter, even if that happened, the Deep South is not the kingmaker in this race. Romney can win this election without winning the South. And, after the primaries, where are evangelicals likely to go? Will they vote for their co-religionists Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama in November? The hatred in the hearts of most conservative evangelicals for the Clintons far outpaces their skepticism and antipathy for Mormonism.

I see the whole issue as a minor nuisance, a non-issue for most (non-evangelical) Republicans, who have been conditioned to treat religion in the warmest and fuzziest of terms. We (the people) seem to desire some brand of nebulous morality and spirituality--but rarely do we require much more than that.

Having said all that, where does Mitt fall short?

Mitt Romney's campaign is the smartest and best funded. He has a great strategy, which may have included arriving at this notable juncture in American political history at a most propitious moment. Almost certainly, he will win in Iowa and New Hampshire. Propelled by his enviable war chest and his superior organization, these early marquee victories could allow him to gain enough momentum to stampede the competition.

But maybe not. Romney has other more intractable obstacles. He is too Massachusetts. He has too many center-left skeletons in his closet. While I can certainly see a path to the nomination (and I think his chances may actually improve following the speech), my gut feeling remains that he will not emerge victorious in the 2008 Republican canvass. I think it likely that he will fall eventually to a more orthodox candidate.

No matter, Governor Romney deserves enormous credit for running an immensely well-executed and heady campaign, and I expect The Speech will give him a boost.

Mitt Romney is to give a speech addressing his Morminism tomorrow. We'll see how it is received. I have been warning him that such a speech is not a good idea. For Republican candidates support from the evangelical base is crucial; or, at a minimum a lack of hostility from evangelicals. But, according to Pew research white evangelical Protestants who attend church weekly are 45% less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate. Conservative and evangelical churches view Mormonism as a non-Christian religion, even terming it a "cult." Voting for a non-Christian is not an option if a person holds a "Christian America" view, common among white evangelicals. Romney is not going to get much support from this group whatever he does. But, by avoiding direct mention of his Mormonism, Romney has escaped actual antagonism.

And, I am not sure that the general voting population will be impressed by a direct address of Mormonism by Romney. According to the same Pew research cited above, only 53% of the voting population has a favorable view of Mormons.

So why is Romney making the speech, against the advice of some of his advisors? He is not a sure bet in Iowa anymore, and he needs that early victory to build momentum. We'll see if this speech helps or hurts him. My money is on hurting him.

From Peter Baker and Robin Wright in the Washington Post, Tuesday, December 4, 2007 (Page A01):

A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy

"President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.

"The new intelligence report [National Intelligence Estimate] released yesterday not only undercut the administration's alarming rhetoric over Iran's nuclear ambitions but could also throttle Bush's effort to ratchet up international sanctions and take off the table the possibility of preemptive military action before the end of his presidency."

What does all this mean?

1. Let me borrow a phrase from myself: Nobody Knows Anything. I use that as my mantra and caveat in handicapping the upcoming presidential primaries. But my record for picking winners in Iowa and New Hampshire over the last twenty years is much more impressive than the intelligence community's demonstrated ability to give us reliable information concerning weapons of mass destruction in the hands of our enemies. This particular NIE and four dollars will buy you a tasty cup of coffee in your local Starbucks.

2. Assuming the report is right, however, and the Iranians put the quietus on their program in 2003, is there anything significant about that moment in history? I think so. The Iranians were properly intimidated by American military prowess and resolve. The sentiment of the hour: "Oh sh-t! This SOB is crazy." If the report is right, it is extremely instructive concerning the efficacy of George Bush's foreign policy in 2003.

3. Assuming the report is right, the Iranians were working on a nuclear weapons program up until 2003. This means they might decide to resume the program at any time.

4. Assuming the report is right, and the Iranians halted the weapons version of their nuclear program as a result of US intimidation in 2003, it is reasonable to assume that they are a lot less fearful of the United States today. With the clock running down on Bush, and the nation divided, I am extremely reluctant to celebrate this report as an "end to the threat." I am with the Israeli's on this one. We need to be vigilant.

5. As for Peter Baker's speculation that military action is off the table, I agree. But I have said that for more than a year. Military action is off the table because of the Iraq situation. In fact, this report gives the Bush administration some cover to do nothing militarily concerning Iran--a choice for which they had no other realistic option.

"And the irony is, Rudy Guiliani, probably the most under-qualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency ...is here talking about any of the people here...Rudy Guiliani...I mean, think about it...Rudy Guiliani, there's only three things he mentions in a sentence, a noun, a verb, and 9-11..I mean, there's nothing else, there's nothing else...and I mean this sincerely, he is genuinely not qualified to be president."


Is Rudy qualified to be president? This has become a recurring theme (you might even say "talking point") for Democrats and pundits on the Campaign 2008 trail. In truth, this is a misleading and irrelevant conversation.

Qualifications are not paramount to the making of a president. Traditionally, the question of qualifications has always presented a fairly low threshold to overcome for presidential aspirants. Biden's incessant raving about qualifications is mostly wishful thinking and strategy in an attempt to frame the debate in a way he fancies better disposed to his candidacy. And, for the record, by "qualified," Senator Biden simply means which candidate has served the longest in the United States Senate.

Of course, even operating under a more reasonable definition, we have had plenty of "under-qualified" presidents--some of whom have done just fine. More importantly, the public doesn't care much who is the most qualified. No one voted for JFK in 1960 because they thought he was more qualified to be president than Richard Nixon. Or Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush in 1992. Or George Bush over Al Gore in 2000. This is not the element upon which most elections pivot.

True, without 9-11, it would be impossible to imagine Rudy running for president in 2008. But so what? Ike was viable in 1952 as a result of WWII—but, as in the case of Rudy, his heroic role was merely a starting point. Douglas MacArthur was a non-starter as a presidential candidate in the post-war climate—as was George Pataki in the post 9-11 world.

Ironically, Barack Obama has questioned Mrs. Clinton's credentials: Hillary is only viable because she is the wife of a former president. Is he right? Yes and No.

First No: If it were that easy, why didn't the GOP run Barbara Bush in 1996? Nancy Reagan in 2000? Laura Bush for 2012? Obviously, Mrs. Clinton is uniquely gifted and experienced among first ladies--and her uniqueness is the reason she is where she is today (forgive the circular reasoning--but, hopefully, you take my point). Having said that, is she there as a result of her connection to her former-president husband? Obviously, yes. But, again, so what? That is only a starting point.

Every presidential candidate needs a “hook.” If aspirants don't have a hook, they end up Duncan Hunter or Dennis Kucinich.

Hillary is a restoration candidate. Barack Obama's viability, at its heart, is the product of a well-timed speech. Rudy is Rudy because of 9-11. Mitt Romney is viable because he wanted to be president, and he had enough money, guts, and brains to get him this close (very much like John F. Kennedy). Fred Thompson is viable because of a TV show. Mike Huckabee did it the "old-fashioned way"—but he is the exception that proves the rule.

Bottom Line: Creating an atmosphere of viability is qualification in itself. The public requires no more than that. Of course, qualifications, viability, and positioning do not speak to the much more important element, at least in the long term, of capacity and aptitude.

Who will actually be a good president? On that score, your guess is as good as mine. God save the President!

Thomas F. Torrance has died. One of the theological giants of the latter half of the 20th century. In constructive theology, he will be remembered for his writings on the Trinity, and on the relationship of science and Christianity. He was a minister of the Church of Scotland, a Reformed theologian, a Barthian, a scholar.

A remembrance here on the Faith and Theology blog.

Here is the Widipedia entry; the first paragraph of which reads:

Thomas Forsyth Torrance (30 August 1913 - 2 December 2007) was a 20th century Protestant Christian theologian who served for 27 years as Professor of Christian Dogmatics at New College, Edinburgh in the University of Edinburgh, during which time he was a leader in Protestant Christian theology. While he wrote many books and articles advancing his own study of theology, he also translated several hundred theological writings into English from other languages. Torrance edited the English translation of the thirteen-volume, six-million-word Church Dogmatics (germ. "Die Kirchliche Dogmatik") of celebrated Swiss theologian Karl Barth. Torrance's work has been influential in the paleo-orthodox movement, and he is widely considered to be one of the most important Reformed theologians of his era.

This scholarly organization studies his work, and does constructive theological reflection in dialogue with Professor Torrance's writings. The Torrance biography on that site does a very good job of presenting his contributions in theology.

Professor Torrance was a hero of mine, the kind of person I want to be like when I grow up. He was a churchman, the son of missionaries in China who himself served two parishes in the Church of Scotland; he had courage and a sense of duty, as war threatened in Europe in 1939 he left the United States, walking away from a job offer at Princeton University, in order to serve as a military chaplain with the British Army in the Middle East and Italy; he was a family man, married with three children whose welfare he valued, turning down an offer to serve as Karl Barth's handpicked successor at Basel because he did not want to uproot his children and transplant them into a foreign culture and language; he was an academic of amazing productivity, rigorous thought, who did theology not to impress other academics, but to help the Church understand its beliefs; he was a man of faith, a devout Christian. Brother Torrance, R.I.P.