Jonah Goldberg opines on the climate in the political left.

“Criticizing someone else’s criticism — even when a government official does it — isn’t an assault on free speech. It is free speech. ”

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

I feel the need to note that the crack about Colorado Springs in the Sept. 25th post was meant entirely humorously. My windows have never been broken by the city of COS, nor any employee of COS, and my car has never been rolled down any hill.

The city of COS is in fact a pretty friendly place, as cities of its size go. So for any of my old friends in COS, please forgive me for my totally inappropriate joke and don’t slash my tires next time I’m in town.

Over at the Weekly Standard, Christian Lowe is reporting on Paul Bremer’s statements about captured Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq- almost 300 foreign fighters in custody, a mix of terrorists and mercenaries, all from other countries. These are not disgruntled Iraqis, opposed to the reconstruction and “occupation” as we so often hear. These are professional warriors imported to disrupt our efforts in Iraq. Lowe also reminds us of Ansar al Islam, the Al Qaida-affiliated group destroyed in northern Iraq in the early days of the war, that had been harbored by Saddam Hussein.

There doesn’t seem to be much doubt among administration supporters who are following events that there was plenty of terrorist connections to the Hussein regime. But the case doesn’t seem to be being made all that persuasively by the Bush Administration these days. They seem to be letting the critics have the field and the microphone, for the most part. Why is that? Some suspect that the administration is just carefully marshalling all the data, in order to produce one overwhelming presentation of proof regarding the reasons they went to war with Iraq. I hope it’s that, and not just a messaging failure. The administration has an uneven record for making the cases it should be making. (Charles Pickering and Miguel Estrada come to mind).

Remember this speech?

“And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we’re not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans.”

That speech, combined with the evidence we already have about terrorists in Iraq, seems to leave no ground at all for claiming we attacked Iraq on deceptive or misleading grounds. The whole “Bush lied” bit seems as much based on simple hatred for Bush as anything that’s happened over this war. You might say that Iraq harboring terrorists was not enough reason to attack them; but that’s what Bush said he would do, and he did it (what an odd thing to say about a politician these days). I’d love to hear Bush using his “bully pulpit” to make just that case. “Disagree with me if you like, but I did what I said I’d do.” I think that would go a long way with the men and women of the republic.

I just got one of those Nigerian fortune emails. You know the one- there’s a fortune that’s been held up in the country and a small investment by you can get it out of the country, at which time you’ll receive a share. It’s basically the Spanish Prisoner scam except without the girl.

The interesting thing about this email is that instead of the money being held up in Nigeria, it’s in Zimbabwe, and has been caused by the land grabs of Robert Mugave. Whoever is perpetuating this scam is smart- they take advantage of current events to make their case sound more compelling. But the heart is the same- to play on my vanity (“I have been informed that you are a trustworthy person”) and greed (“I must let you know that this business is 100% risk Free”).

In this version, I’d get a free trip to Holland out of it, too.

I was recently told of a friend of a relative of mine who buys penicillin through her daughter who lives in Russia. This relative of mine thought that was great, and offered to get me some. The conversation went something like this–

Me: “… ”

Relative: “It’s really cheap… they save a lot of money”

Me: “Illegally imported drugs from a mafia-run country… What part of that sounded like a good idea to you?”

Relative: “What’s the problem?”

Me: “…”

Relative: “I think it’s a blessing. If someone you knew gave you $100,000 that they won gambling in Vegas, would you take it? They’re run by mobsters too”

Other Relative, Laughing: “At least you’d know it was real money!”

Relative: “Well, drugs are so expensive in this country.”

Me: “Well, quite aside from the fact that we can be reasonably sure that drugs sold here don’t have rat poison in them, which I expect runs up costs some, there’s the whole issue of R&D expenses(blah blah blah Friedman / Cato free market stuff)”

Relative: “Well I just won’t tell you when I get it then.”

I am just amazed that any rational adult would think this was a smart idea. On top of that, look at this link I saw that very same night.

I’m fairly certain the relative in question doesn’t know how to use the Internet, so if anyone else knows who I’m referring to here, please don’t tell them I posted this story.

I find myself with mixed feelings about Mel Gibson’s upcoming movie, Passion. Lots of people are taking shots at Gibson for the movie, and I am slow to want to join them, because they’re all taking shots at him for the wrong reasons. He’s being criticized for anti-Semitism, since of course John tells us, along with all the gospels, that it was the Jews that killed Jesus.

I probably don’t need to spend a lot of time on the profound ridiculousness of this criticism, since essentially it amounts to saying that being a Christian is fundamentally antisemitic. The Gospel of John, and the passion story in general, lies at the foundation of our faith, and we can’t alter our understanding of that without changing our religion. Some Jews, at least, have recognized the foolishness and hypocrisy of attacking Gibson over this, but many Jews and many non-Jews have piled onto the PC cause du jour.

I’ve read a fair amount of confusing and self-contradictory stuff on the web about what the exact criticism of the movie is- is it that he simply represents the gospel story as it is presented by John? Or does he embellish the story? Perhaps he highlights the guilt of the Jews even more than John himself does? I guess I’ll have to wait for the movie to find out.

But that presents the other side of my dilemma. I have no intention of seeing the movie at all, as representations of Christ in any form violate our understanding of the 2nd Commandment. “God may not and cannot be imaged in any way.” The Reformed have always understood this to include Christ. The Roman Catholics of course have a very different understanding of the 2nd Commandment, and Gibson is a Roman Catholic.

Now what is the reason that we believe that the 2nd Commandment applies to the incarnate form of Christ? We are perhaps on slightly more ambiguous ground here than on any other aspect of the 2nd Commandment. There is little doubt that we ought not have golden calves in our worship services, or the like. We must not worship other gods beside Jehovah. In traditional Protestant circles there is strong agreement that pictures in general should not be used in the aid of worship, although this understanding has eroded significantly. The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t even view the 2nd Commandment as a separate commandment, lumping it in with the first, and calling the commandment about taking the Lord’s name in vain the 2nd Commandment. Therefore, to the RCC, there is no unique commandment regarding the use of pictures in worship, and a good thing too because they use a truckload of them.

Our complaint is, the only proper response to God is worship. That is, if I say “That is God”, then whatever the That is, I have to worship it. If an artist pictures God, and I say, “that artist has pictured God,” then I must worship that artist’s picture. But of course I am then worshiping a false God because I am worshiping that artist’s conception of God in his mind, which cannot possibly correspond in any meaningful way to the real God, who is a Spirit and cannot be represented by the physical. There was no idol in Solomon’s temple.

The same applies to a dramatic interpretation of Jesus. Even if they stick to the plain words of the gospel, the way Jesus looks, the way he talks, the way he walks, all will communicate the actor’s and the director’s understanding of who Jesus is, and if I say, “that’s Jesus,” I have to worship that understanding, and am thus worshiping a false God, because it’s based on a human understanding. So we in the Reformed community avoid any dramatic interpretation of Jesus as well.

Then why do I say I have mixed feelings? Well, all that being said, Mel Gibson is one of the few conservatives of any kind in Hollywood, and we have to do some serious thinking about who our friends are and who our enemies are. I can picture some saying that those who appear to be on the side of Christianity but subvert it with dangerous doctrine do more damage than outright enemies of the faith. I think that’s true, but I’m not sure if Gibson falls into that category. And in this particular controversy, what Gibson appears to be coming under attack for is believing that the gospels are true, and we all have a dog in that fight. I’d venture to say that how exactly someone understands the Second Commandment is of less importance than believing in the truth of the Bible, and I hope that we in the Reformed community do not distract ourselves from the central issue, which is whether the secular community or any particular religious community can demand that we give up our faith because it offends them, with what is a relatively minor point of doctrine.

The Second Commandment is not a minor point of doctrine, and I hope that you don’t think I’m saying that it is. I’m saying that the particular application of the Second Commandment to this particular situation, is _relatively_ minor, in comparison to the larger question of whether we will be permitted to exercise our faith in the public square at all.

An update to the post below, regarding the teens who vandalized the school:

I found out last night, from some local people, that the teens involved caused a few hundred thousand dollars in damage, including among other things, taking a sledgehammer to the school’s computer system. So I guess the tone of indignation in the article was pretty justified.

Rev. Dorman Savage, the former minister of the congregations I now serve, is not expected to live much longer. He has been battling cancer for over a decade now. Please pray for him, and his family, in the days ahead. Rev. Savage has been a faithful minister in our denomination, the RCUS, for over thirty years.