The Rantings Of A Christian Conservative Gamer

The Right Spin

Guess What?
No one is here. Yep, I'm pretty sure no one reads this thing any more. To be honest I've been too busy to write. Got let go from Comcast and my current jobs makes posting difficult. I'm typically too tired to write when I get home. Besides, I've been busy trying to get a writing career going.

Something has come up in Arizona that I'm hopeful about.

Update:

You Can't Be A Christian And A Liberal (Or Was It Conservative?)
What do Ted Kennedy and I have in common? We're both self-professed Christians.

I think, thankfully, our similarities end there.

As a Christian, and I think any Christian would agree with this, I know my politics stem from my faith. So, in learning more about my faith I learn more about my views on political issues. That is, how I should frame particular political arguments. If you want to convince me that abortion is moral you have to do so legally, through the Constitution, and through the Bible. If you could show me the it was Constitutionally okay I'd still fight it from a Biblical position (a position Constitutionally protected).

Anyway, if the Bible is the unchanging Word of God then its message must be concrete. How, then, can self-professed Christians come to opposing opinions on so many political issues? How can Ted Kennedy and I disagree on the issue of abortion yet both keep our Christian membership card?

The easy answer is our faith in Yeshua. However, our love for Him should be evidenced by our actions. Our actions for Him should be enough alone to convict us for loving Him.

So, do our actions and our words bare this to be true?

Am I a poor Christian or is Ted Kennedy? Are conservative poor Christians or are liberals?

Personally I have no problem calling someone a "bad Christian." There's developed some kind of taboo against such a thing but when one claims to be a member of a particular faith, and uses that membership to establish some kind of moral high ground, they need to be shown reality from time to time. I use my faith as the foundation for my politics. I feel it is perfectly reasonable for someone to attack my position on issues using that as a weapon.

Why others don't see it this way is beyond me. Maybe I am a bad Christian.
The "Tolerance" Of The Left
Michelle Malkin links to a wonderful site that provides a photographic record of the public face of the left. It's a history of various rallies leftist groups either attended or planned. It's disturbing.

Seeing images like these brings the idea of a "culture war" to the forefront. The most recent pro-life rally in San Fran crystallizes the entire issue. The account shows pro-lifers staying civil and simply marching forward in relative silence and peace. While you have leftists doing everything in their power to stop the lawful demonstration and attempting to stifle free speech.

I cannot see this discourse becoming more civil. I see the rhetoric becoming more heated and hateful. I place 99% of the blame on the left. This isn't an issue of, "Well, both sides do it." No. Both sides do not do it. The right is wonderfully adept and policing their own and when they can't they shout from the mountain tops messages of condemnation.

And the left you have the head of the DNC getting pictures taken with Code Pink.

Democrats simply see no reason to come to the center because they, in their arrogance, simply see no wrong in their ways. They can do no wrong.

How long, then, until violence occurs? I think it's only a matter of time. Had the police not covered every inch of the protest, essentially playing the role of armed guards of the pro-life group, things would have designated fast. Can you honestly say the same would have happened with a pro-death (there's no such things as pro-choice on this issue) rally? Perhaps a few isolated incidences but nothing on the scale as this.

The "culture war" has only begun. And before it ends, like with any war, there will be death.


PS - If Michelle Malkin reads this please e-mail me. I'd like to conduct a short phone interview with you for a college course.

Abortion And The Bible
Many people I've spoken to seem to feel that the Bible is mute on the subject of abortion. Of course they only state this when one declares that the Bible is anti-abortion. I've not yet met anyone who feels the Bible is pro-choice.

Anyway, I thought I'd provide some Biblical verses that argue strongly for the pro-life stance.

Psalm 22:9-10

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.

Psalm 139:13-16

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Isaiah 44:2

This is what the LORD says— he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.

Isaiah 46:3-4

Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you.

Isaiah 49:5

And now the LORD says— he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength-

Job 31:15

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?

Jeremiah 1:4-5

The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Luke 1:41-42, 44

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!

As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

What is interesting with this verse is that the Greek word for "baby," (or, more accurately, "fetus") used here to describe John the Baptist in the womb, is later used for Jesus in the manger.

Exodus 21:22-25

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

There's a bit of contention about this passage as many pro-choicers interpret this verse to say that the baby is dead when birthed. Or that the baby is irrelevant to the scene. Unfortunately this interpretation is wrong. First, in the original Hebrew the phrase "gives birth" appears around 86 times in the Old Testament. Each and every time it referred to a live birth. Such as Moses and others. The Hebrew language does have a word to mean "stillbirth" but it is not used here. Secondly, if the baby is irrelevant to the passage then the question begs to be asked, "Why bring it up at all?" Why mention a pregnant woman and a premature birth to begin with? It doesn't makes sense.

While there is no, "Thou shalt not commit abortion," contained within the Bible it is abundantly clear what the Bible's stance on the subject would be. It would take a hurculean effort to bend the passages I've listed to make the Bible seem silent on the issue.
Human Nature - A Question
There's a divide within our nation. This isn't old news. However, as I was reading an article something the author stated made me think:

As the left-liberal root-causes rot has it, people are basically good. When and if they go astray, it's because someone caused them to. Crime is said to be precipitated by factors outside the perpetrator.

Can the differences between the left and right be summed up as simply as that? Can we say of the left and the right, "The left believes in mankind's basic goodness and acts accordingly and the right believes in mankind's basic badness and acts accordingly." The more I think about it the more I have to say, 'yes.' Ilana Mercer wrote an excellent article about this idea here.

When we look back at the tapestry of human history do we see the overwhelming progress of good or evil? If mankind is essentially good how do you explain the march of evil that is our past?

That's because, after people perpetrate evil, liberals toss free will to the wind... You see, to perpetrate evil, one must be "mentally ill."

If true how does the left explain the horrible evil of our past? Was everyone "mentally ill?" And why did this "illness" suddenly end in our age?

No human wants to think they're bad. We all want to believe we're doing what's right for ourselves and others. The problem with that thought, however, is the fact that most who commit evil don't believe it to be so. Crazy people don't think they're crazy


Oh, by the way, the first article linked has nothing to do with this topic but it's a good read anyway.
The Violence Within Islam
Islam and the Koran are built upon violence. Anyone who knows the history of the faith's founder knows this. Muhammad spoke only of peace when he was not in a position to take what he wanted. When his number swelled he had no problem bringing the sword to those who stood against him. There is simply no comparison between this man and the messiah of another faith, Yeshua.

That there are so many duped into believing Islam is a religion of peace while Christianity is a religion of intolerance astounds me yet is unsurprising. Anyone with the capacity to think and read can only conclude that Muslims who preach peace and tolerance are indeed infidels of the faith. The Koran is the literal word of Allah - unchanging and perfect in it's handing down. Therefore those who do not heed its call for the death of unbelievers (or at least their forced conversion at the sword) are not practicing true Islam. I suppose this could be blamed on the "corrupting" influence of the Judeo-Christian values that have formed the West.

It only goes to show how far the West has fallen when it extols the virtues of a barbaric faith while shunning the virtues of the faith without which they would not exist. Truly up has become down.
Revvin' Up For Iran
It would appear that Israel is confident in its ability to deal with Iran in March should it need to. I think that's great.

What I don't think is great is that the U.S. will probably take the lead in any action. All talks about action against Iran usually involves the words (or acronyms), "U.S.," "E.U." and "NATO." As if they're the only groups with opinions on the matter. Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not calling for a "world consensus" on the matter. Far from it. But Israel, the most probable target for Iran's nukes next to the land of apple pie and white picket fences, certainly should be involved and, I daresay, take the lead.

Israel has made it clear she intends on launching an offensive against Iran regardless what the world community has to say about it. Not that to world community disagrees anyway. But with the idea of a U.S. led attack and the media denigrating Bush at every available moment I think perhaps the Administration should let Israel handle this one and simply provide intel and moral support. Cheerleaders if the situation really calls for it.

I think Bush needs to back off blowing stuff up for the time. I mean, I’d love to see the guy blow stuff up but if someone else is willing and able to go to the mat on this one we should let them.

But, perhaps, with the overall feeling that a nuclear Iran is a pretty bad idea it might be a good PR opportunity for the Administration. In that light I could see the U.S. leading this coalition of backstabbing cowards. Present company excluded (I'm lookin' at you England, Australia and Israel). The President could definitely use the poll boost and I'd like to see him get it. Just not at the expense of allowing Israel to show her strength. For when she does terrorists tend to back off. And that has even longer reaching positive consequences.
A Look Into Me...
This is something I wrote. I feel a bit weird putting it up but do what you will with it.


Ariel Sharon And Israel's Future
Scott's got a good write-up about the current situation in Israel what with Ariel Sharon's poor health. I personally feel that the situation is grave and that Sharon will not recover. I'm torn about this. He's been strong on defense but I cannot forgive him for displacing the Jews that he did. However, it is up to Yahweh to deal with him on that.

What I'm concerned about now, and Scott noted this, is the time it's going to take for the political situation to stabalize in Israel. Especially given the March point-of-no-return for Iran. I want Israel to blow them into the next Ice Age if they have to. The world cannot have a nuclear Iran and it seems the issue is prickly for the U.S. just now though the President is in talks with NATO about it.

Bottom line: Israel has the right to defend herself and Iran will most certianly use her nuclear power status to threaten her.

I only hope Sharon's eventual passing doesn't bring harm to Israel in the long run.
No Seperation of "Church-State"
I read about this awhile ago and as I was not maintaining my blog I kept this nugget to myself. The other Right Spin posted about it (as well as providing a link to the WND article itself) so I thought I should to.

The crux of the matter:

Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU's "repeated reference 'to the separation of church and state' ... has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

Suhrheinrich wrote: "The ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that ... the government [is kept] out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person."

"Does not embody the reasonable person." That's it right there. Even reasonable athiests do not hold that religion has no place in governemt. Indeed reasonable athiests and secularists remember that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others were champions of a religion-free government and that these governments have killed more than any religion in the history of the world ever has.

The reasonable person reconizes and appreciates the role religion, Christianity in particular, has played in crafting the West.

Anti-Christian Jeans
For the idiot near and dear to your heart.

It's "666," right?
Perhaps not.
Gaming Politics
I was listening to the PC Gamer podcast and heard about an interesting site: Game Politics.com. The editor of the site, Dennis McCauley, was interviewed and seemed like a fair man, though those who did the interviewing did not. That is to say I felt they were too pro-video games.

After looking over the site it would appear PC Gamer decided to interview someone who pretty much shared their views. That's unfortunate. I believe gamers and the video game industry itself isn't doing nearly enough to call to the made game developers who cross the line. Instead they spend most of their time attacking elected officials and private citizens who react against such hot button issues as the "Hot Coffee" mod.

So, everyone is busy reacting and no one is actually trying to fix the problem in an intelligent way. There's a problem that needs to be addressed and the video game industry and its supporters are more interested in wrapping themselves in the 1st Amendment than actually trying to address the concerns of parents who, for whatever reason, are often woefully ignorant of the video game medium.

I did e-mail Mr. McCauley about my concerns and replied thusly:

Hey, Kevin...

Good points.

There was some condemnation of Rockstar/T2 for lying in the game community. Here at GP we gave it to them with both barrels...

Personally, I think there is a lot of private resentment and anger in the game community at R*/T2. However, since they are paid-up members of the ESA, the industry won't be taking them on anytime soon.

Warren Spector criticized them publicly late last year, but no one else is saying much for the record, which is a shame. Understandable, in a way, I guess. This is still a relatively small industry. No one wants to burn their bridges. Which is why the media exists, to get at the truth.

Best,

-Dennis

For those who don't know:

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) is the U.S. association exclusively dedicated to serving the business and public affairs needs of companies that publish video and computer games for video game consoles, personal computers, and the Internet.

This is taken directly from the ESA's own web page. So, when Rockstar messes up the very group that is suppose to represent the industry in the public won't cendemn them because they help pay the bills. Kinda like most unions.

I'm glad Mr. McCauley agrees with me that the industry itself has work to do in presenting itself to the, what I'll call, "parenting" public. I only wish video game developers and their throngs of supporters would reconize the same.
Interesting Stats
Instapundit links to some stats anyone interested in the Iraq war should look at.
"Brokeback" Propaganda
I have no intention of seeing "Brokeback Mountain." I like my cowboy films, well, not gay. I like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood and I know at least one of there two will never do a film like "Brokeback Mountain." I'll let you guess which.

Now, if someone wants to do a film about gay anything that's their right. But I'd like them to be honest about it. The supermajorty of those who have a problem with homosexuality, myself included, are not the kind who delights in torturing and murdering them. Indeed I'd say we all find that very idea repugnant. However, by golly, wouldn't you know this film's got a "homo hatin" torturin' murderer! Oh, why can't society leave these two lovebirds alone!?

Also never addressed it the fact that these two characters had loving wives at home. Two families are destroyed and no one bats an eyes.

I have to agree with David Kupelian when he states:

"Ultimately, propaganda works because it washes over us, overwhelming our senses, confusing us, upsetting or emotionalizing us, and thereby making us doubt what we once knew."

Why is this movie propaganda?

Kupelian says the emotional appeal used in the movie causes viewers to sympathize with the "gay" cowboys, and to emotionally reject the "anti-gay" character who tortures and murders a homosexual man.

There is a clear attempt going on to mainstream homosexuality and demonize anyone who opposes that adgenda as a member of the same camp that would murder these very people. Unfortunately fairminded gays are not pointing this out as the lie that it is.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.