Do you ever wonder why someone like Justice Janice Rogers Brown puts up with the ridicule, rudeness and downright hatred of people who don’t even know her?
I’m in awe of her dedication to the rule of law in the face of withering criticism by people who believe she’s unfit to serve the people of California, although 76 percent of the voters elected the “extreme right winger” to the California Supreme Court.
I don’t wonder why Justice Brown subjects herself to harsh criticism and scorn. It’s not complicated. She believes in ideals that transcend herself. On a much smaller scale, I get the same treatment. Since I’ve been blogging, I’ve discovered just how overtly bigoted white liberals can be, while paying lip service to “equality” and “diversity.” Because they hear what black liberals say about me, they suddenly feel bold enough to cross the line as far as race is concerned.
The first time it happened, I was shocked, believe it or not. I’m sure Justice Brown felt the same way when it first happened to her. I haven’t let it stop me from saying what needs to be said, and neither has she. I’m less surprised by what other blacks say and write about me. As a member of the sub-culture, I understand why they’re angry and bitter and want me to go away.
Facing the truth is often painful, and hearing it from one of your own doesn’t make it easier. I’m not always right, and neither are they. But it’s important that we respect each other enough to at least consider the other side, not to necessarily be persuaded by other ideas. As someone with the good fortune to have been born in America, I feel it’s my duty to exercise the fought-and-died-for freedom to speak my mind.
Justice Rogers takes the duty much further, serving as arbiter of justice and adherent to the rule of law. The people of liberal California obviously think she performs her duties well. I recommend this surprisingly even-handed story feature story about her in the Los Angeles Times (reg. req), and Peter Kirsanow’s article in National Review Online, The Dems’ Post-Nuclear Nightmare.
Click on “more” to read excerpts of one of my newspaper op-eds published in 2003. It might be just a bit edgy. 
***
Upon meeting me, white liberals take one look at my skin and presume I’m a left-leaning, Congressional Black Caucus-supporting, racial preference-loving, pro-infanticide crony. They condescendingly offer opinions about “diversity and multicultural” this or “Democratic fundraiser” that. I usually excuse such transgressions because it’s natural to quickly size up people based on information readily available. When I rebut these presumptions and share my deeply held conservative beliefs, however, I get open-mouthed stares.
With 90 percent of the black vote locked down tight, Democrats don’t quite know what to do with the other 10 percent, so they pull the old plantation routine by turning blacks against each other. While the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) shamelessly attacks California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a black conservative nominated by President George W. Bush for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, white liberals sit back and gaze upon their handiwork. It’s life as usual on the old plantation.
Chains of physical bondage have been broken, but mental bondage still exists. Sometimes slave-owners recruited loyal blacks to be the overseers who crushed the will of other slaves longing to be free. Justice Brown — unlike the CBC — is not a slave to liberal dogma, and she is mercilessly berated as a result by the CBC and their white colleagues.
Slave-owners have always exploited human weakness to control slaves with fear, distrust, envy and lies, and the exploitation continues. You see, conservative blacks are the plantation system’s greatest threat. We’re the runaway slaves who followed the Underground Railroad to freedom. We’re the “uppity Negroes” of the Jim Crow era who wouldn’t stay in our place.
Modern-day plantation owners — white liberals — manipulate paranoid blacks into attacking each other in ways that would make a blackface performer blush. A black liberal web site (to remain unnamed) recently posted a shameful caricature that depicted Justice Brown as Clarence Thomas in drag. Without hesitation or reservation, blacks take the bait thrown out by white Democrats and viciously turn on one another. All the master has to do is sit back and watch. And laugh.
….
In an attempt to malign Justice Brown’s character, the acerbic Rep. Maxine Waters called her a “poster woman for the far right wing,” and said that her “legal record and her views on civil rights and constitutional issues place her so far outside the legal mainstream.” Right. So far outside the legal mainstream is Justice Brown that 76 percent of liberal Californians voted for her in 1998. Non-voting D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton added that Justice Brown was “cut from the same cloth as Clarence Thomas.” Why?
Here are a few reasons why Democrats consider Justice Brown unqualified to sit on the D.C. Circuit:
- She dissented in a California Supreme Court opinion that upheld the right of a child to have her unborn baby killed without her parents’ consent.
Right-wing nut!
- She wrote the opinion that upheld Proposition 209, a voter-approved measure outlawing the use of race in public university admissions and hiring in California, a direct threat to the professional grievance lobby.
A race traitor!
- In order to forward their far-left agenda, liberals know they must circumvent the U.S. Constitution and the will of the people, which Justice Brown vowed to honor. She wrote: “When fundamentally moral and philosophical issues are involved and the questions are fairly debatable, the judgment call belongs to the Legislature.”
This, in the words of legislator Sen. Edward Kennedy, is “despicable”!
Justice Brown — and all independent thinkers — are a menace to plantation society.
Update (6/8): Is today The Day?
Great post La Shawn (I can see the emotion for this topic in your writing :))
I am learning that the more I use the Bible to get a point across to some of my “Democrat Supporting for no known reason” Bible Believing Christian relatives (so they say), the light bulb comes on.
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 8:09 am
The power of God’s word cuts through all the philosophical ideas, opinions, and attitudes. We can argue and “debate” on this blog until we’re in our graves, but truth remains, without regard to what we think or how we feel about it.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.07.05 @ 8:13 am
I’m neutral on Brown because I just don’t know enough because I haven’t been paying attention.
To Renee I want to say this: when I questioned someone’s Christian beliefs on this board, I was torn apart. Consistancy states that you should be torn apart as well. But I noticed on this board that if you challenge a “liberal’s” Christianity, it’s fine. If you challenge a “conservative’s” Christianity, you get skewered.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.07.05 @ 8:16 am
DS, there’s no illusion of neutrality or objectivity on this blog. I’m a biased Christian and right wing conservative who favors Christians and conservatives, and I’ve never said otherwise or tried to hide it.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.07.05 @ 8:19 am
Check out LaShawn Barber’s Op-Ed comments on JRB. She concludes with this: Justice Brown — and all independent thi […]
Pingback by Myopic Zeal — 06.07.05 @ 8:19 am
If Justice Rogers Brown sticks to the law, and her ideals, she is someone to be admired and respected. Regardless of race.
LaShawn, it’s the same with you. You speak your mind, stick to your ideals and tell the truth.
Don’t worry about what people say….Do what’s right and you’ll never have to worry!
Dan
Comment by Dan — 06.07.05 @ 8:29 am
LaShawn, I wrote that I am neutral because I don’t know enough about her positions.
My comment is about the second paragraph of your comment; the remark about questioning someone’s beliefs - Admin.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.07.05 @ 8:32 am
La Shawn:
The comments by opponents about Janice Brown indicate their racism.
They constantly bring up her color, how she was raised in “racist” Alabama, etc..
They just can’t mention her name without noting her color. Shameful.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 06.07.05 @ 8:33 am
But, again, if it was wrong for me to question someone’s Christianity, it should be wrong for others to do the same. When politics melds with religion, as the Republican party is doing, you are bound to weaken religion. On that point, I will not waiver.
I know enough “liberal” Christians, who are Democrats, who have done the Lord’s work to dare challenge their beliefs.
To go further, I’ve seen “liberal” Christian Democrats fight for churches that provide “soup kitchens” while the “conservative leaning” neighborhood in which the church resided, fought to have the “soup kitchen” closed.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.07.05 @ 8:37 am
They constantly bring up her color, how she was raised in “racist†Alabama,
Ummm… Her supporters are the one’s bringing up her background, from what I can tell.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.07.05 @ 8:38 am
DS, I think you’ve got it twisted, or maybe I’m out of the loop. I don’t think it’s WRONG to question someone’s believes. It’s customary when doing so, however, to tell the person why you believe they’re wrong rather than just making a pronouncement.
I don’t know anything about the “soup kitchen” nonsense, but I try, and obviously fail, to separate my faith from the Republican party. It doesn’t help my cause that I’m outspoken about faith and conservative issues. So be it.
People who read this blog ought to know by now that it’s run by a conservative Christian. If they don’t like it, there are plenty of blogs run by Christians on the other end of the political spectrum. The blogosphere is a BIG place.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.07.05 @ 8:41 am
La Shawn, well said.
Funny I was just listening to NPR just before reading this and they gave 3 ‘voices’ (Boxer, Schumer and ??) long paragraphs against Judge Brown and one with a couple of sentences in favor (??).
Talk about tipping the scales.
Comment by Andy — 06.07.05 @ 9:06 am
Using the Bible, in PROPER context, to prove a point, is not questioning someone’s Christianity. More than likely, it brings to light how much they do not know God’s word or his truth.
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 9:11 am
DS,
You also missed my point when I said ““Democrat Supporting for no known reason†(notice the no reason)…
if they would give reasons why they back the platform, no problem, however they never do and when they really look at the platform and their belief in Christ, they don’t match up…
as for soup kitchens..
you are now mixing “social gospel” with the saving gospel..
the great commission is not about soup kitchens (works) but about saving souls (producing fruits)…
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 9:16 am
Renee, you are growing in grace, just as God planned for you in the beginning.
Too often the physical feeding and healing aspects of Jesus’ ministry are elevated above the reasons he ultimately died on the cross. He certainly wasn’t hanging up there in pain, crying out to the Father so bellies would be full and crippled men would walk. He hung there so that hearts would be filled with love for him and that dead men would live for him. We were dead in sins and yet he loved us enough to die a miserable death so that we’d never be separated from God again. That is the Gospel.
Actually reading the Bible would clear up a lot of these misconceptions. Philosophizing about the way things ought to be isn’t enough.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.07.05 @ 9:24 am
DS, it’s one thing to question one’s belief in contrast to actions, it’s another thing to question articles of faith without referring to the Book. This is where you tend to get ‘torn’ apart
Comment by Andy — 06.07.05 @ 9:28 am
Do soup kitchens help people to get off the street?
Does giving homeless people new shopping carts (as was done in California) help them to get off the street?
Does teaching the homeless how to eat from dumpsters (a real program, complete with videotape) help them to get off the street?
Or are these programs simply ways to make liberals feel good about themselves, while doing nothing constructive to change the circumstances of those about whom they claim to care?
Comment by RedBeard — 06.07.05 @ 9:29 am
La Shawn,
The more I read the Word, …
All I can say is …. WOW!!!
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 9:32 am
Renee, I have spent years in the ‘ministry’, I graduated from an evangelical university and hold a degree in bible which was inclusive of hermeneutical training, exegesis, in other words,and blah blah, all that other good stuff.
My point is not to gloat in terms of my training and ability to evangelically pull out the bible and, in my opinion, correctly divide the word of truth. But to categorically state that neither American party represents ‘Christianity’ if you truly study the bible.
And it sickens me when people attempt to merge the two which so often occurs.
The fact of the matter is the the Conservative party pays relatively little attention to social justice on a macro-level. Justice is mentioned and is a theme in the bible more-so than love. Love also is a self sacrificial behavior that should manifest itself in a democratic society through the vote of the polity that claims it has love. I submit the republican party does not demonstrate this (nor the democrats for that matter).
The fact of the matter is this, American Christianity is for the most part degenerate, myopic, and entrenched in materialism. Churches have evolved into self-help community centers as opposed to love centered social action agencies in the form of Christ.
Darkstar, I agree with you 100%
“When politics melds with religion, as the Republican party is doing, you are bound to weaken religion. On that point, I will not waiver.”
Although I definitely lean conservative, basically because they still ‘on the surface’ profess to hold up basic standards of morality, primarily on the abortion issue, the sensitivity that Christ showed to the poor and underclass, for the most part they don’t.
If you subtract the ‘moral’ positions of each party, all you are really left with is issue of wealth distribution and the fundamental econonmic debate of how this is to be done.
Comment by Dell Gines — 06.07.05 @ 9:33 am
Have you read through her decisions? No seriously there is rule of law (yeah right) and then there is a sharp divergence from reality and odd ideological judicial cronyism. She is dangerous to the majority of African Americans, minorities and poor. Her decisions benefit not the genral welfare of the country but a few interested, vested parties. That makes her dangerous.
Dangerous? For instance…? - Admin
Comment by Cyrus — 06.07.05 @ 9:50 am
Dell, you’re not really disagreeing with Renee. You’re merely adding to what she wrote. Now I know you have a bone to pick with me as far as politics are concerned. You’ve accused me of merging faith and politics. I think you’re wrong because faith inevitable guides everything in your life, including who you vote for and what issues you stand for. Being the contrarian that you are, however, you can’t resist disagreeing with someone on this blog about something.
And while you may not think you’re gloating about your degrees, you actually are. Fortunately I’m not intimidated, and your degrees don’t render you more authoritative on this matter, and I encourage others not to consider you to be. Your training gives you a deeper understand of the original languages (if you studied Greek and Hebrew) and church history, and the ability to cross reference source material more efficiently, but none of it matters without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I believe you are a Christian, so don’t misunderstand me.
You definitely have the same weaknesses and biases the rest of us do, and your seminary training doesn’t exempt you from that condition.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.07.05 @ 9:54 am
After hearing the moonbats screeching against Justice Brown, I find myself supporting her even more. When her greatest opponents are the pro-abortion groups (take away the NARAL and Planned Parenthood chapters from the groups that oppose her in CA and you have what? Not much) and NOW, I find myself standing with her in opposistion to her opposistion
BTW, anyone hear Kim Gandy’s speech the other day? Where she said she doesn’t want to be allied with any evangelicals, progressive or conservative? That evangelical christians are incompatible with the values of the democrat party? And she compares pro-life democrats to skunks that need to be kept out of the big dem party tent.
Refreshing to hear a progressive actually say what she believes. Now if only the media gives her latest screed more play, more people will see what the zealots of the left really think.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.07.05 @ 9:55 am
I would also be interested in hearing Cyrus explain how Justice Brown is dangerous, using facts and specifics, not hyperbole.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.07.05 @ 10:04 am
SCSI, not to mention Dean’s latest screech. If any moderate/liberal Christians are in doubt as to DNC values, there you have it. Of course Biden and friends realize that and are tripping over themselves to distance themselves from Dean, but it’s too late. Heh
Comment by Andy — 06.07.05 @ 10:07 am
LaShawn, I have never said that you merged religion and politics. I have said in many instances your politics don’t represent the way Christ operated in the world from a biblical perspective (as mine don’t in ways either, we aren’t perfect).
And I don’t gloat over my degrees, I use them simply to illustrate the point that when you are talking about ‘correctly dividing’ the word of truth from an evangelical perspective, as Renee mentioned above, the question becomes A) How do you do it, and B) How do you apply it, both of the things I am not only trained to do, but have been sanctioned to do by evangelical, and non-denominational churches who trusted me with their children, adults, and senior citizens.
Faith isn’t an abstract concept, as James says, faith without works is dead. So then my second question becomes how do you qualify who is ‘being lead by the holy spirit’. That is the statement you used to discredit me backhandedly in the post above by subtle implication.
The bible says tree must be measured by its fruit, Jesus said, ‘they will know you are my disciples by how much you ‘love (agape manifested sacrifice) one another’.
You know the things I do in the community, and I have never detailed the things I do and have done directly under the authority and as an authority in ministry. So my question to you becomes, why do you seek to discredit me and my opinions?
Comment by Dell Gines — 06.07.05 @ 10:12 am
You’re misrepresenting what I said, and you’re rather defensive. Take off the gloves and read the comment again. I didn’t write that YOU weren’t guided by the Holy Spirit. In fact, I made my meaning plain. My point was that no matter what kind of degrees someone has, His guidance is a necessary component, dare I say the most important one.
And Dell, a Christian doesn’t have to have a degree to properly interpret the Bible, and you know that. That is why I said you were gloating. There’s an objective method to intepreting Scripture, especially where there’s an ambiguity, which can be learned by any Christian who studies the Bible. I don’t know about being “sanctioned,” whatever that means.
If you want to have a tantrum and accuse me of trying to “discredit,” go ahead. We’ll finish the conversation when you’re done.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.07.05 @ 10:17 am
“both of the things I am not only trained to do, but have been sanctioned to do by evangelical, and non-denominational churches who trusted me with their children, adults, and senior citizens.”
Oh…So there’s your reason for being better than we mere mortals…wow….Talk about gloating….
“The bible says tree must be measured by its fruit, Jesus said, ‘they will know you are my disciples by how much you ‘love (agape manifested sacrifice) one another’.”
Doing deeds proves nothing. What’s in your heart? Is it better to give a man a fish so he eats for a day? Or teach the man to fish so he can feed himself and his family for a lifetime (this is the difference I see in the DIM’s and the Republicans…The DIM’s use a persons poverty to get power, the Republicans want to teach people how to get out of it)?
Please, your words and how you use them immediately tell me you think you know what’s best for me and mine. You don’t.
Comment by Dan — 06.07.05 @ 10:23 am
I’m still trying to find the scripture that said the church is suppose to be ….
“love centered social action agencies”
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 10:28 am
Rhetorically speaking, Uncle Tom was a better Christian — trained only by the Word while sitting with his family in his cabin after a day’s work and sanctioned by none — wiser than many a preacher man to rightly divide the truth from the fluff.
Comment by Andy — 06.07.05 @ 10:32 am
That was a fairly even handed article. If anything Janice Rogers Brown seems to be a bit of a maverick with a conservative bent. That’s fine with me.
This is off topic and specifically relates to the beginning of LaShawn’s post about being a black conservative.
I consider myself to be more moderate than anything (despite the views of some on this board) and though I don’t always agree with some of what LaShawn and others (particularly those in the Brotherhood) might say, it is usually well supported and well said. What is particularly troubling to me however is the black conservatives I read (including Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell and etc) are so busy castigating black Americans that they never seem to focus on the positives that happen in our community as well. Perhaps that isn’t their focus and that is certainly their right but that is probably why they get slung with darts calling them “self- hating”. That’s why I can’t get with Jessie Lee Peterson, though I believe he has a lot of sound ideals. He talks about black people so bad, I wonder does he realize he’s also black as well. Black conservatives get a lot of attention because they are few in number. They also help to shape the opinions of many people who aren’t black ABOUT black people. There was a poster the other day (I think Stephen Johnson) who captured the frustration that I feel sometimes coming to this site and others. He mentioned that with blacks only being 13% of the population that “we” are NOT the only source of problems in this country. I think some folks enjoy coming to LaShawn site when she writes a post critical of black folks (and we do have cultural flaws that need to be criticized, so don’t get it twisted) so that they have a “excuse” to pile on about black people and all of the terrible things they do and how “black culture” is the root all of all things evil.
Of course, I am being a bit dramatic here but I do think that dog will hunt. People are influenced by what they see and read and if all you put out is negativity about a cetain group, I can’t help but believe that somehow, that’s going to color your judgement somewhat.
Isn’t it in Spiderman where Peter Parker’s uncle tells him that with great power comes great responsibilty? As black conservatives become more high profile because of their beliefs, I do think it’s important to be mindful of the responsiblity to show the ugly, the bad and THE GOODNESS of black folks in a way that does not compromise your belief system. Not all of us are on welfare, wearing baggy pants or baby mamas.
And though some may know that, I’d bet that a lot of readers don’t even have a clue.
Just my 14 cents…
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 06.07.05 @ 10:33 am
“The bible says tree must be measured by its fruit, Jesus said, ‘they will know you are my disciples by how much you ‘love (agape manifested sacrifice) one another’.â€
Remember that love also includes “rebuke”, “correcting” and bringing to the light sinful (oh my I said that word) behavior.
So a church spends time feeding the homeless (as many churches do)… and they don’t share the truth of the gospel (as many don’t because they don’t want to offend someone or have them not come back)….
If that homeless person dies tonight, what have they really done for him? According to scripture, absolutely nothing (especially in regards to showing love in attempting to have that person reconcile with God).
That’s one of the issues with placing the “social” gospel above the Gospel of Jesus. We get more involved with “feelings” and not having people “phyiscally suffer” and don’t even think twice about where they are going when they die
La Shawn said it best (and as plain as can be in todays language :)):
“He certainly wasn’t hanging up there in pain, crying out to the Father so bellies would be full and crippled men would walk. He hung there so that hearts would be filled with love for Him and that dead men would live for Him.”
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 10:45 am
In the National Review Online article was the following tidbits:
A. The Substantive Critique
The only charges against Brown meriting serious consideration were posed by Stuart Taylor in a May 2, 2005, National Journal piece in which he [snip] described her as “a passionate advocate of a radical, anti-regulatory vision of judicially enforced property rights far more absolute than can be squared with the Supreme Court precedents with which judges are supposed to comply.”
B. Taylor’s description is largely based upon a review of two speeches given by Brown a few years ago and her dissent in San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco.
C. Taylor cites Brown’s San Remo Hotel dissent to suggest that she might invalidate laws that have the effect of redistributing wealth. He argues that such a radically expanded view of judicially protected property rights is simply another form of judicial activism — one that trends toward the libertarian/conservative side of the philosophical spectrum — but activism, nonetheless.
WHAT? Reacting to someone else’s active role in taking someone’s property, by protecting their property rights is judicial activism? Does a judge have to be completely “inactive” and do nothing or be criticized by the leftist property takers as “judicial activists”?
D. Taylor’s critique, the best by far regarding Brown, is thoughtful and substantive, but suffers from at least two infirmities: First, Taylor places too much weight on Brown’s speeches. While sentiments expressed in a nominee’s speeches may illuminate how that person may behave as a judge, in Brown’s case we’re not operating with a blank slate. She’s compiled an extensive library of opinions while serving on the California supreme court the last ten years. That record reveals a judge committed to steadfast adherence to precedent and textual interpretation. There’s nothing in her opinions, including that in San Remo Hotel, outside of the legal mainstream.
E. Second, Taylor’s reading of Brown’s San Remo Hotel dissent finds an urge to radically expand property rights where others find an unremarkable interpretation of the California constitution’s comparatively broad takings clause.
F. San Remo Hotel involved San Francisco’s hotel-conversion ordinance that requires owners of hotels that serve the poor, elderly, and disabled to pay a substantial fee to the city whenever the owners seek to convert their property to tourist use. The fee, amounting to 80 percent of the construction costs of the units to be converted, would be paid into the city’s Residential Hotel Preservation Fund for the poor.
G. Janice Rogers Brown is no extremist.
I concur with G
Comment by Baklava — 06.07.05 @ 10:59 am
The story of Apollos perfectly shows that one can’t know everything, regardless of study.
With regards to works and function, a ‘toenail’ Christian is just as important as a ‘finger’ or ‘neck’ Christian
Comment by Andy — 06.07.05 @ 11:00 am
Darkstar wrote, “I was torn apart” and “you get skewered.”
Were your arguments dismantled or did you feel skewered and torn apart? What were the quotes that made you feel torn apart and skewered? Can you provide them?
Comment by Baklava — 06.07.05 @ 11:03 am
Renee wrote, “the more I use the Bible to get a point across to some of my “Democrat Supporting for no known reason†Bible Believing Christian relatives (so they say), the light bulb comes on.”
Darkstar wrote, “if it was wrong for me to question someone’s Christianity, it should be wrong for others to do the same.”
Darkstar, I don’t see where Rennee was questioning someone’s Christianity (your assertion), other than the very small pithy in parenthesis “(so they say)” which is probably what they say and can be taken as “that’s what they assert anyway”.
Comment by Baklava — 06.07.05 @ 11:08 am
Dell Gines wrote, “The fact of the matter is the the Conservative party pays relatively little attention to social justice on a macro-level.”
Would you agree that the above is an accusation? Now is the accusation true? I don’t beleive so personally as a conservative. I believe I understand economics better and understand that a nation that prospers, and has a safety net (more like a hammock with over a hundred programs for the poor) is more socially just on a macro-level than countries like France and Germany who acts and opines about their superiority with respect to social justice but in effect has a much larger dependant class and more than double unemployment rate and a lower standard of living because the amount taken from anyone who succeeeds is punitive . My belief is where liberals go wrong is believing that conservatives aren’t well intentioned and making sweeping accusations about conservatives character without knowing what we truly believe and feel.
Sorry about the rapid posts, I’m reading and writing real quick before my 8:30 meeting.
Comment by Baklava — 06.07.05 @ 11:17 am
Janice Rogers Brown will make a fine Supreme Court Justice - assuming that Bush-43 has the guts to nominate her when there is a vacancy.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 06.07.05 @ 11:22 am
Tiffany wrote, “(including Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell and etc) are so busy castigating black Americans
I respect that’s what you believe they are doing. You have a right to your opinion. I just wanted to say that I never took that view from their words. I believe they were referencing specific groups of people not “all” black Americans. Also, I believe their message is mostly positive laced with solutions that they’d like to see implemented. Also, I believe they care. At the worst, they could write about ALL americans because every race of Americans has specific groups of individuals within with problems.
Comment by Baklava — 06.07.05 @ 11:24 am
Hey Baklava, long time
You are correct, I am not talking about questioning someones Christianity (however in the scope of using all scriptures, and not just the verses that back our claims, to discuss issues, that ends up happening based on the answers produced).
The reason I put (so they say) is because:
they say they are Christian
since that is the case…
the Bible “should” be the only place we both need to go to for our answers :), but many times in discussions, we find that is not the bases for someone to call themselves a Christian (as in the example of certain sects/cults that call themselves Christian however say they do not believe in the Bible or that it is not relevent for our times).
The Bible is the reference point to guage where their true beliefs lie.
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 11:25 am
Tiffany wrote, “He mentioned that with blacks only being 13% of the population that “we†are NOT the only source of problems in this country.
Respectfully again, I don’t know anyone who has made the above claim. It’s difficult for me to understand the premise being discussed when I can’t relate it to anything I’ve heard. Thanks for your patience with my response.
Comment by Baklava — 06.07.05 @ 11:26 am
I agree with Mwalimu Daudi
To the topic at hand:
“I agree with Janice Rogers Brown will make a fine Supreme Court Justice - assuming that Bush-43 has the guts to nominate her when there is a vacancy.”
She would make a fine Supreme Court Jusitce and I am even more curious to see how the President will react when the times comes to nominate someone.
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 11:30 am
The Christian army is the only army in the world that shoots its wounded.
We are all one in the body of Christ.
God is not the author of confusion.
While it is true that we have differences, I believe it is for His purposes that we are called. Christ fed people before he preached to them, knowing that empty stomachs would be distracting. He wanted to show tangible mercy. He was an advocate for social justice, and set the example (however impossible to flawlessly follow).
I have been a Republican since 1980, I have been a Christian since my childhood. I have not seen Republicans deny aid to the suffering but I have seen them call for personal accountability - handing a healthy man a crutch is a sin against him. I have seen Democrats advocate for the murder of the unborn. It is my faith that steers my vote. Should the Republicans put forth a candidate who is for abortion, I will not vote for him. As long a single plank in the Democrat platform is build on abortion, it will not prosper.
I am a scientist. No semantics, the unborn baby is human, and to destroy him is to murder. I believe that history will not be kind to our generation. We are a society of Herods. Technology will ultimately show abortion for the abhorrently cruelty that it is.
Comment by Kathy — 06.07.05 @ 11:39 am
La Shawn, my compliments to you for your willingness to stand for your beliefs. Many are beginning to join you. Hang in there.
Some of the comments posted are rather misleading. I think that the reference to “the Conservative Party” by one is a tip off to his biased opinions. Conservatives are huge participants in meeting social needs in the world. Additionally you will find that evangelical Christians contribute more money as a percent of income to causes, other than plant and equipment, which directly benefit needy people than any other group. In addition to that you will find many conservative Christian people very involved personally, and very often sacrificially, reaching out to their neighbors and communities with quiet and frequently anonymous help. To disparage these people as one commenter has is very unfair and inaccurate.
And then one speaks of politics and religion… Curiously I don’t see any condemnation of the Islamic behavior which teaches young children and teenagers to blow themselves up killing innocent people nor of the effort on the part of a certain political party to protect Islam from any scrutiny; almost a de facto defense of Islam by the Democrat Party. Has the Democrat Party found religion of a different kind? One has to begin to wonder.
Regarding materialism I might suggest some of these participants spend some time in liberal Boston. Remember this is the home of John Kerry. John paid 12% income tax last year. Now if he’s so into social needs why does he go out of his way to avoid paying taxes? I’ve always wondered about the concept of taxation. There doesn’t seem to be any law that prevents a person from giving more to the government than the minimum. But folks in liberal Boston seem to go out of their way to avoid even paying the minimum. But, hey… I suppose it’s for the children.
The bottom line question in all of these issues is what solution(s) best serve the people in meeting the core needs of individuals, families, and communities? There is clearly an unwillingness on the part of the liberal side to enter into an honest discussion of these solutions. Embodied in the Democrat Party, they have opted out and chosen to attack, deceive and disparage. The Republican Party, for their part, with the exception of Bush, seems to have cowered in fear from these attacks. So neither side is really looking at the core question with any honesty. Most are just jockeying for some imagined place of esteem. Until civility returns, politicians begin to look at themselves as servants and not rulers, and can sit down and honestly evaluate problems, potential causes, and reasonable solutions we will descend down the path to oblivion. But then non-governmental sources have often led the way in doing the best job of seeing the need and meeting it.
So we’ll go on doing our job, ignoring the cackle of those who seem to be going around the ring hoping the bell will bail them out.
God’s grace to you. TOL
Comment by Taste of Liberty — 06.07.05 @ 11:45 am
“He was an advocate for social justice, and set the example (however impossible to flawlessly follow).”
Did Jesus ALWAYS feed the people BEFORE or AFTER he taught? Did Jesus petition Caesar and the Jews in regards to slaves? Just curious. How bout the Apostles, what did Paul say about slaves?
What was the more important message? The Good news or righting social wrongs?
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 11:56 am
Baklava,
In response to your responses above: What I state is my opinion based on my reactions to things that I have read and/or experienced. Just because you know didn’t hear that the claim was made, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t made. I don’t have time to go back to look up the post, but it’s there.
You know if you don’t like what I have to say, you don’t have to respond.
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 06.07.05 @ 12:19 pm
Tiffany,
Yes. I wrote that I respect your right to your opinion.
It has nothing to do with me not liking what you are saying. It has to do with my interest in knowing who made the claim that Blacks are the only source of problems in this country. I could then make sure to never vote for that person.
Thanks for your time.
Comment by Baklava — 06.07.05 @ 12:34 pm
Ultimately, she’s the next Sandra Day O’Connor. The newspaper article says she doesn’t walk the party line. She’s nobody’s puppet. It’s nice to have someone so independant. Republicans were the first to hire women on the Supreme Court. And, now Republicans, hopefully, will be the first to hire women of color.
Hey Everyone, listen up: Dell Gines graduated from an evangelical University and holds biblical degrees which he uses only to illustrate his points. But, he never gloats.
Ever.
Comment by Glamchild — 06.07.05 @ 12:38 pm
Renee, #44, Amen!!!
Comment by Andy — 06.07.05 @ 12:41 pm
Janice Rogers Brown belongs on the Supreme Court, IMO.
Comment by RepJ — 06.07.05 @ 12:45 pm
Some people don’t support nor care for Janice Rogers Brown because her views are radical. I am not a liberal and have voted Republican my whole life until 2004 and I still am against her because of her views. There is no evil in wanting a more centrist justice.
Comment by Adam — 06.07.05 @ 12:52 pm
To DarkStar:
That is wise to take a neutral position on something or someone you don’t have enough info on. With that being said, it really does not matter where she Mrs. Brown came from. The bottom line is:
1. Is she qualified?
2. Will she intepret the law based on the U.S. Constitution NOT the EUs or France’s.
La Shawn,
Keep up the good work! It is good to see sharp Afro-Americans folks invovled in the political process!
Comment by Robert — 06.07.05 @ 12:57 pm
Renee,
He set the example to guide us in all our ways. I was pointing out that He was perfection, and we are flawed. He can lead the way, but our humanity is an obstacle to our ideal of justice, and what we identify as need. I refer you to ICorinthians 13. Without charity (love) we are as sounding brass. And v. 3 speaks directly to ministering to temportal needs without spirituality.
The body is temporal and the spirit is forever, but the body is often an obstacle to understanding the spirit. In other words, a hungry person is far more likely to understand the message of mercy through Grace, if he sees it demonstrated through physical mercy, which by the way is ours to give because of Grace, and through no achievements of our own, nor education, nor origin. If we have been given much, it is our obligation to give much. I am the first to confess that I fall short. In fact, Renee, I have so many shortcomings, you don’t have to look for long, but by Grace, I continue to try. I was not admonishing your point of view, rather it was an attempt to reconcile differing points of view.
I see through the glass darkly, not to point out errors of others, but because of my own error.
Witnessing for Christ is a priviledge of His Children, and with the Mercy He has shown us, we must have mercy on each other. “What is the more important message” is maybe not the question. Perhaps “what is an effective message” is a better one. Must we chose the spiritual over the temporal, or do they act in concert? I submit, that to the unbeliever, the temporal is his only frame of reference.
Comment by Kathy — 06.07.05 @ 1:07 pm
I keep this C.S. Lewis quote with me: “Love is something more stern and splendid than mere kindness”. People tend to confuse kindness with love. Kindness is buying a homeless man a meal. Love is getting involved day to day with his life, sharing the love of Jesus, discipling him, helping him get on his feet. The government can buy a meal, but only individuals can show love. Acts of kindness can be very visible to the outside world, acts of love are often invisible, known only to the participants and the Lord. Just a thought.
Comment by ElCee — 06.07.05 @ 1:24 pm
Kathy,
No one is arguing “love”.
It is the term “love” that is usually mis-defined to relate to physical needs.
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 1:25 pm
Very nicely put ElCee
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 1:26 pm
Land’s sakes.
It’s not either-or.
If your faith has any meaning, it will make a difference in your life.
No one can say it will definitely make difference “x.”
Someone who starts 10 miles from a finish line and someone who starts 10 feet from a finish line will, barring other factors, not get to the finish line at the same time.
If it’s so important that “soup kitchens” get done - then do them.
If it’s so important that the verbal gospel be preached - do it.
Deeds, not words.
(Note: Speaking the gospel is a deed. Talking about speaking the gospel is mere words.)
Comment by steve matlock — 06.07.05 @ 1:53 pm
“I am a scientist. No semantics, the unborn baby is human, and to destroy him is to murder. I believe that history will not be kind to our generation.”
Kathy, where do you stand on the Iraq War?
BTW, its murder.
On stem cell research?
Just curiuos since Bush (who’s not a scientist, or leader–but he plays one on TV) says he’s against any funding for something that kills human life to save human life (the war?).
Killing an enemy in war is not murder, Robert. At least as far as God is concerned. Double-check your Bible on that. It’s filled with insightful stuff. - Admin
Comment by Robert — 06.07.05 @ 2:01 pm
Renee, not to mention that Jesus didn’t tend to the physical needs until he addressed the spiritual need. Matt 14:13-23, Matt 15:32 (Food), John 4 (Water, Healing).
Without exception, where Jesus appears to take care of the physical need first, it is because the faith of the applicant(s) was either already manifest, or to illustrate the selfish nature of man in that when their immediate need is fulfilled, they tend to go their merry way, spiritual needs be damned (the healed ingrates).
The overarching message in Jesus’ ministry is that the spiritual trumps the physical.
Comment by Andy — 06.07.05 @ 2:09 pm
La Shawn, great article from ‘03!
We have our own Judge Owens from Texas and now Brown from Cal on the federal bench, and this is the beginning of a great turn-around on the federal courts!!
Comment by ttyler5 — 06.07.05 @ 2:12 pm
Adam, what radical views are you against. Every ‘Republican’ is a RINO, until they cite specifics. One specific example will do.
Comment by Andy — 06.07.05 @ 2:14 pm
Very good point Andy.
Also,especially in the case of feeding the multitudes, the dual message of teaching the apostles and strengthening their belief in who He is byt the miracle that was performe (all of the multitudes were not poor and homeless, they came to hear his message).
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 2:18 pm
I’m sorry, Renee, I don’t understand why you thought I was arguing about ‘love’. I was trying to address your question about social justice. I don’t think that the scripture I referred you to can be misinterpreted to read ‘physical needs’. I use scripture since God’s Word is less likely to be misunderstood than my foolish attempts to explain myself. Your question to me was one of priorities, and my answer is that obstacles to spiritual understanding should be removed where within our God-given power. I don’t think that you and I disagree on this.
I agree with you Elcee. What you suggest are excellent ways to address physical needs while demonstrating spiritual kindness.
La Shawn, sorry I got off topic! In my attempts to reconcile a disagreement, I hope I am not embroiled in one. I think Christian conservatives, and Christian Liberals are both Christians, and have much to gain from exchanges on your blog. I am a very conservative Christian, and my thinking has been influenced by work with the homeless, homeless charities, and poverty relief agencies (I haven’t done anything significant like you or Dell or many of your posters). But as a Conservative, have a hard time reconciling the Liberal Christian stance on abortion, and I want to eliminate the myth with my liberal friends that Conservatives are not compassionate. But I also appreciate that Liberal Christians are approaching the problems of poverty from a different perspective. I agree with Elcee that a permanent solution is better than a temporary one, but I have seen situations were a temporary solution was the only one available. Did I get an opportunity to witness, no. But they knew I was there to serve my Lord. Was that a witness? that is my hope. Sometimes, La Shawn you post on things unrelated to your faith, but your witness to Christ comes through. I have hope that someone might think that way of me.
On topic finally, I think Judge Brown will be an excellent appellate judge, and I’m looking forward with the hope she’ll be on the SCOTUS someday. We need not only her excellent legal mind, but her love of country and commitment to the constitution.
Comment by Kathy — 06.07.05 @ 2:20 pm
Your answer said it all:
“Did I get an opportunity to witness, no. But they knew I was there to serve my Lord.”
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 2:33 pm
Good grief!
I step away from the computer for a few hours and return to a rousing thread. What was supposed to be a discussion about Justice Brown quickly became a discussion about Christianity and has remained so for the most part. Any opporturnity to talk about Christ is — to understate the matter — good.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.07.05 @ 2:44 pm
ROFL
I was wondering where you were. I am glad you are back…
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 2:47 pm
Ms. Brown will do an excellent job. She is not radical in any sense of the word, unless it is now radical to uphold the constitution of the US.
As to the “debate” going on…
All the Bible quotes are taken out of context! Any single quote out of the Word will be mis-used and mis-understood out of the context of the entire Word.
So here is mine to be mis-used and mis-understood:
Ec 10:2 “A wise man’s heart goes to the right, a fool’s heart to the left.”
he he he…
Comment by jeff east — 06.07.05 @ 3:07 pm
My father had a friend who was a cantankerous, mean, licentious, (to my mother and I, repulsive and unredeemable) jerk. He drank. He cursed. He ran around on his wife. And still my father befriended him. When my Dad was diagnosed with lung cancer, this ‘friend’ was amazed at my Dad’s faith. My Dad had seen this man chase missionaries down the street cursing them, yet this man asked my father about Christ. That man became a Christian because of the love he was shown, not because of the scorn for his fallen condition. He was not the first man my father led to Christ, but he was the last. My father was the first to admit that it was God’s love that changed his friend’s heart, the example of my Dad’s compassion and faith made the man aware of the need in his own heart.
People who come to Christ to save themselves from damnation in Hell do so for selfish reasons. People who come to Christ to serve Him, because they love Him and He is right to expect it, want to be in Heaven to be with Jesus, because separation from God is Hell. They have a hard time judging others because reside safely in the knowledge that God will judge.
Understanding the difference is to understand the difference in approach between two different types of Christians: Those looking to score jewels for their crowns, and those looking to place crowns at His feet.
In other words, there’s witnessing and then there’s Witnessing.
Comment by Kathy — 06.07.05 @ 3:11 pm
Whatever those fools think about you, we appreciate what you’re doing. I never meet people like you, so it’s refreshing to read your opinions. Plus, believe it or not La Shawn’s enemies, this blog shows a lot of love for the readers and for humanity. The demogogues and manipulative Marxists are demonstrating hate.
Comment by mj — 06.07.05 @ 3:13 pm
Dell,
You wrote: “Faith isn’t an abstract concept, as James says, faith without works is dead. So then my second question becomes how do you qualify who is ‘being lead by the holy spirit’. That is the statement you used to discredit me backhandedly in the post above by subtle implication.”
Dell, as one classically trained you should also know that Paul stated that faith without love is nothing (1 Cor.13: 1-3) and while faith absent of works is dead, faith with all the works you could possibly do absent of love is void.
I’ve read many a comment from you here and I really have to wonder: what’s your motivation? I don’t you think you understand how your words read to the average reader.
You first wrote: “Renee, I have spent years in the ‘ministry’, I graduated from an evangelical university and hold a degree in bible which was inclusive of hermeneutical training, exegesis, in other words,and blah blah, all that other good stuff.
My point is not to gloat in terms of my training and ability to evangelically pull out the bible and, in my opinion, correctly divide the word of truth. But to categorically state that neither American party represents ‘Christianity’ if you truly study the bible.â€
This is true, and while there is much to agree with here, I have to ask: What’s the relevance of telling us your credentials? La Shawn, has a point. You reached for the “authority card†in order to use it, your down play is only disingenuous form of false humility employed in the hope to lend more credibility to your argument – at least that’s how I read you.
Comment by Broken Messenger — 06.07.05 @ 3:46 pm
I just love strong women!
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — 06.07.05 @ 4:42 pm
Robert,
My stance on the Iraq war (since you asked) is the same as Sgt. York’s stance on WWI. He was a conscientious objector and devout Christian. When he was drafted, he decided that he would die for his country, but would not kill for it. When in the throes of battle, and he found that he could save lives by fighting, he chose to fight.
You may disagree that lives have been saved in Iraq. I will not be able to convince you otherwise. I can only point to the fact that now the children’s prisons are empty in Iraq.
Stem cells: GWB’s stance is consistent with pro-Life. Cells that have been created may be used, but new lives cannot be created for cannibalization.
Commonly stated lies in the press:
1. Bush shuts down stem cell research.
(Actually, he stopped having the taxpayer pay for it. I disagree with it, why should my money fund it? But there are ample private funds available, and if it is indeed as promising as some suggest - also doubtful - then the money will come. Not all scientific discoveries are federally funded.)
2. Stem cells aren’t human.
(If they were not human they would not work to regenerate human cells.
Not to put to fine a scientific point on it, do you think innocents should die because their death would sustain another? Do you choose death for human embryos who have no voice, and do you choose them because they have no voice?)
3. Embryonic stem cells are the only type that work.
(This is the most ridiculous lie of them all. Other types of stem cells are gaining in effectiveness, we do not need to create embryonic stem cells, other types may be adequate.)
Robert, your problem differentiating these moral issues lies in your definition of ‘Life’, and ‘Innocent’.
BTW, you asked.
Comment by Kathy — 06.07.05 @ 4:51 pm
Not to put to fine a scientific point on it, do you think innocents should die because their death would sustain another? Do you choose death for human embryos who have no voice, and do you choose them because they have no voice?)
the civilians in iraq who are now dead wish you had spoken for them as well.
Comment by demosthenes — 06.07.05 @ 4:56 pm
ASsertion: “3. Embryonic stem cells are the only type that work.”
Actually no. Umbilical cord stem cells through research have been found to provide over 40 uses. There hasn’t been ONE use found for embryonic stem cells though the research has been going on and the restrictions that Bush placed on only existing lines of embryonic stem cells hasn’t restricted private investment and research. The private sector as Kathy mentioned is the best way to accomplish this research due to efficiency and effectiveness, yet liberals want to force taxpayers to pay for stem cell research even though there is the lack of efficiency and effectiveness (during a time of war and defecit). Priorities are key.
Comment by Baklava — 06.07.05 @ 5:02 pm
This is a well written post La Shawn. The bigotry you encounter from liberals when you step out your designated victim box is astonishing isn’t it.
Acctually, I think that this discussion of Christianity is very much related to the topic of Janice Brown. As RedBeard in his #17 comment points out, a lot of things done in the name of Christ by the left are not only useless, but harmful. The left calls themselves compassionate & the right hateful.
Janice Brown is accused of being unfit to serve because she does not believe in theft, the propper term to use when referring to the San Fransisco regulations, in her San Remo dissent, as well are racial preference, which is racism. However, it is Judge Brown who is compassionate,not her opponents. Her dissent in San Remo is preciscely because she felt that small hotel owners, who have very little political clout, are being bullied.
The problem is that the left doesn’t see hardworking people, like small business owners, as deserving of protection. Their doctrine of victimology blinds them to reality. If you truely want to help the homeless, you will help them to become sober & substance free (Christian programs have a better success rate than secular ones), get a job & become a good, productive citizen. This is of course what’s called “tough love”, but that is what is effective & the left eigther can’t or doesn’t want to understand that.
Comment by NYgirl — 06.07.05 @ 5:03 pm
Let me ask you demosthenes, are you talking about the victims of Saddam? I think I have spoken for them.
If not, please argue how Iraqis were better off under Saddam. (Please note that 87% of Iraqis would counter your argument.)
Comment by Kathy — 06.07.05 @ 5:06 pm
Baklava,
“Assertion” - I was debunking common mistakes in the press, not asserting them - and you argued it better than I.
Comment by Kathy — 06.07.05 @ 5:10 pm
#72, Baklava, you are absoultely right. Also, cord cell have already been used to treat 57 diseases & thus, have proven their effectivness. Opposing the use of embryonic stem cells is not the same as opposing medical research.
#71, There is a difference between the DELIBERATE killing of embryos while there are other alternatives & the ACCIDENTAL killing of civilians in Iraq, where military action is the only option.
Comment by NYgirl — 06.07.05 @ 5:11 pm
NYGirl wrote, “Her dissent in San Remo is preciscely because she felt that small hotel owners, who have very little political clout, are being bullied.”
You haven’t heard of the HAG (Hotels are Good) organization?
They contribute millions of hotel dues to the right wing politicians of America. CA-HAG is in bed with Arnold. We need to move forward with the 80% hotel property redistribution and show Arnold that there is no vacancy for him.
Ok. That was dumb….
Comment by Baklava — 06.07.05 @ 5:18 pm
#71, There is a difference between the DELIBERATE killing of embryos while there are other alternatives & the ACCIDENTAL killing of civilians in Iraq, where military action is the only option
tell that to the dead and dying. and if you think military action was the only option you are not paying attention.
better yet ask the iraqis who are now facing an insurgency that kills them in greater numbers than us if they prefer saddam. and remember, we will leave one day and the insurgents will still be there and until sharia is established they will continue to kill god’s enemies.
Comment by demosthenes — 06.07.05 @ 5:20 pm
demo wrote, “tell that to the dead and dying. and if you think military action was the only option you are not paying attention.”
Yes. War is attrocious. We should never oppose evil. We shouldn’t have entered WWII. The 84 Senators who voted for the war shouldn’t have. The 39 countries who fought with us shouldn’t have. And Saddam should still be in power. The alternatives left Saddam in power and had more of his people dying per month/year and Kathy mentioned that.
We could turn it around and talk to you like you talk to us and say, “Are you for more people dying?”
BTW, 42% of insurgents are from Saudi Arabia and another large percentage is from Syria. You are all over the board trying to justify not spreading self-determination and democracy to Iraq.
You aren’t convincing anyone with your style. We could turn to a better way of discussing things no?
Comment by Baklava — 06.07.05 @ 5:26 pm
Some random observations regarding the wealth of material to choose from today:
1. I love how people paint Jesus as a “social advocate.” As LB said, and I heartily concur, those who do that miss the entire point of Jesus being here in the first place. Miracles and all those things were a wonderful byproduct of his ONE AND ONLY PURPOSE IN BEING HERE. Jesus came here to die, go to hell, rise on the third day and ascend into heaven, all so we may have a wonderful relationship with the Father. It is obvious to many that they haven’t figured out that if we serve Him, soup kitchens and all that other stuff will be a wonderful byproduct of our faith, but not something that proves how great of a Christian we are. Yet many miss that, why?
The problem with Christianity practiced by many in the United States is that they are all running to point to how good they are for doing something. Genuine faith needs no boasting, nor pointing to oneself to demonstrate how great a Christian they are. IT’S ALL ABOUT JESUS PAYING FOR OUR SINS AND OUR INDEBTEDNESS TO HIS MERCY. Serving Him is the only thing we need worry about. He gave us wonderful things to live by, but don’t you think that if you truly serve Him, you would be doing those things anyway? If you love God with all your heart, than the works that Paul and others so eloquently write about will happen. But you must love Him first.
Perhaps I am “uneducated” to most when it comes to spiritual matters, but there sure is a lot of chest-thumping going on today.
2. To be more “on-topic,” JRB is a wonderful jurist if you would take the time to read what she writes. Naysayers are twisting on DNC talking points instead of getting to the meat of her decision making. Pitiful.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 06.07.05 @ 5:29 pm
For being “uneducated” Chris…
you hit the nail on the head
Comment by Renee — 06.07.05 @ 5:34 pm
demostenes,
As I stated, the Iraqis have been asked, and the last survey I saw 87% said they are better off now. Talk about fuzzy math - you think the terrorists in Iraq have killed more than Saddam - check your stats you are off by orders of magnitude.
The insurgency is being funded by the Italian ransom money paid for Sgrena. Once it runs out, so will the insurgency. Notice the foreigners in Iraq are the suicide bombers, not Iraqis. This won’t last forever, I suggest you read some frontline sources instead of MSM, and familiarize yourself with the historical antipathy average Iraqis have toward sharia. Iran is looking more and more like a failed society - don’t be surprised if there is a new democratic revolt in the next generation. Democracy is coming to the middle east. If that makes me a war-lover it makes you a freedom-hater.
Comment by Kathy — 06.07.05 @ 5:35 pm
Powerlineblog wrote:
The Senate has voted 65-32 to end debate on the nomination of Judge Janice Rogers Brown for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This, of course, clears the way for her confirmation.
JOHN adds: I don’t get it. The “compromise” agreed to by fourteen Republican and Democratic Senators specifically provided that Brown would not be filibustered. This means that 32 out of 45 Democrats voted to turn their backs on the compromise. I haven’t been able to find the roll call, but I assume that all seven Democrats who signed the agreement voted for cloture, if they voted at all (three Senators didn’t vote) . That would mean that just a handful of additional Democrats voted to uphold the agreement made by their brethren. As in the case of Judge Owen, voting to continue the filibuster has little practical effect, if any; they obviously can and will vote against Brown on the merits. So maybe they were casting a symbolic vote in favor of the principle that it is proper to filibuster judicial nominees.
Comment by Baklava — 06.07.05 @ 5:41 pm
Chris,
While I mostly agree with you, I would have to take issue with the following:
Miracles and all those things were a wonderful byproduct of his ONE AND ONLY PURPOSE IN BEING HERE. Jesus came here to die, go to hell, rise on the third day and ascend into heaven, all so we may have a wonderful relationship with the Father. (emphasis mine)
His sacrifice for those who would believe was His primary purpose but His how He lived by demonstrating to us how to love others, His miracles declaring His Divinity, ect. were purposes too. I would agree with you if you said His primary purpose was to give the Father glory, for in that we can role all these other things under such an umbrella - including the most important act of glorification: His sacrifice for us on the cross.
Brad
Comment by Broken Messenger — 06.07.05 @ 5:43 pm
Sorry Baklava, I don’t know a lot about the HAG.
You’re right in pointing out to demosthenes that sometimes war is a necessary evil. Note that we went into Somali to feed people who were starving due to the warlord’s tyranny. When we went there “peacefully” & gave out aid, guess what, much of it did not go to the civilians, but rather to their armies. The military action was taken to try to ensure that the food did go to the civilian population.
The food packets dropped to Afgahnistan, before coallition forces landed, were stolen from the civilians by the warlords & given to their friends to be sold in stores.
And now, Nic Kristof is howling about the genocide & rape in Dafur. I believe we should help them too, but how will Mr. Kristof & the left react to the military action which will be called for when the perpetrators don’t walk away quietly?
Comment by NYgirl — 06.07.05 @ 5:44 pm
Good grief..my apologies I am typing quickly without proofing…the above should have read…
His sacrifice for those who would believe was His primary purpose, but how He lived (by demonstrating to us how to love others), His miracles declaring His Divinity, ect. were purposes too. I would agree with you if you said that His primary purpose was to glorify the Father. For in that we can roll all other things under one umbrella - including the most important act of glorification: His sacrifice for us on the cross.
Comment by Broken Messenger — 06.07.05 @ 5:49 pm
Janice Rogers Brown
La Shawn Barber blogged Do you ever wonder why someone like Justice Janice Rogers Brown puts up with the ridicule…
Trackback by Don Singleton — 06.07.05 @ 5:56 pm
“we will leave one day and the insurgents will still be there and until sharia is established they will continue to kill god’s enemies.”
demosthenes
You really don’t get it.
What your saying is that because evil will continue there is no use fighting it.
You are saying that the Iraqis should just give up to the terriorist because the terriorist will never stop.
You can’t really believe that %*&&%$.
BTW: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between insurgency and terriorists. And only someone totally without a moral compass could confuse the two. The terriorists in Iraq have no plan, no government, no list of demands they are fighting for. They target children.
For those of you who grew up after Viet Nam and had the MSM view that “One man’s terriorist is anothers freedom fighter.” push at them. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is simple, and straight forward to tell the difference.
A guerrilla fights (targets) the government, the police, and the military. Others may die but they are not targets. The guerrilla is also fighting FOR something that is defined. The terriorist targets people, children, anyone. A guerrilla might attack a military convoy with a bomb but he would be carefull not to blow up children. The terriorist targets the children and the convoy, and thinks he got a twofer. Not by words but by deeds you will know them. Terriorist should be kill whenever possible. Their politics, religion, whatever doesn’t matter, they aren’t real humans. They are evil and nothing can be done with they but KILL THEM as fast and cleanly as possible. Guerrillas you can deal with, talk to, respect, they are human.
Never buy the MSM propaganda.The truth is that “The only good terriorist is a dead terriorist.”
Comment by Dan Hamilton — 06.07.05 @ 6:16 pm
#88 Dan Hamilton, Michale Yon, a blogger embedded in Iraq, makes the same point. He shows how the isurgents deliberately target civilians.
Comment by NYgirl — 06.07.05 @ 6:40 pm
you are now mixing “social gospel†with the saving gospel..
Nope. You are assuming…
the great commission is not about soup kitchens (works) but about saving souls (producing fruits)…
… agreed. Of the “soup kitchens” that I am familiar with, attempting to save souls is a part of the process.
if they would give reasons why they back the platform
There are full time politicians who don’t back the entire platform of their party. In all honesty, how many people who proudly proclaim their support for their party, can tell you what the full platform is?
Philosophizing about the way things ought to be isn’t enough.
I trust that wasn’t directed towards moi…
DS, it’s one thing to question one’s belief in contrast to actions, it’s another thing to question articles of faith without referring to the Book. This is where you tend to get ‘torn’ apart
Ummm… On this blog, I’ve seen people’s Christian belief’s questioned with no reference to the Bible.
What is particularly troubling to me however is the black conservatives I read (including Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell and etc) are so busy castigating black Americans that they never seem to focus on the positives that happen in our community as well.
I’ve been writing the same thing for years.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.07.05 @ 7:04 pm
I’m not sure what happened to my earlier post, but I’ll try to repeat it.
I’m not against JRB being named to a lifetime court appointment because she’s black or a woman or committed. I’m against her getting a lifetime appointment to the court because she’s acorporate whore.
She supports the Lichener Era, and consistently sides with corporatations over the public.
I keep reading about personal accountability on this site. What about corporate accountability?
Why do so many support the bankruptcy law re-write?
Why should people have to be accountable for their mistakes (getting sick or hurt w/out having healthcare) and corporations don’t (offering credit to people w/ bad credit histories and past bankruptcies)?
Once more:
Welfare= bad
Corporate welfare=the American way
Wev need people on the courts who don’t bend to corporate money.
JRB will be a terrible jurist for Americans (unless they’re CEOs or part of the corporate elite).
Comment by Robert — 06.07.05 @ 7:34 pm
Ok Robert, JB’s a corporate whore and I suppose that makes you a public leech?
More like JB is an individualist advocate. Her opinions are in line with the founding fathers in that no one has a right to take from what I’ve created.
The public trying to take from corporations is the same in principle as trying to TAKE from an individual, in both, it is wrong.
If you’re actually in the workforce, I’ll bet you’re either working for a corporation or working in the public sector. Either way, when a corporation has had enough of the public taking from them, your corp job will be on the line. And when enough corporations have had enough, your public sector job will be on the line.
What JB realizes is that without corporations, there is NO public sector, so if anything, she is protecting economic IDIOTs from themselves.
Interesting that you only focused on Lichener, what about her multitude of judgments on individual rights?
You know what, never mind. I wouldn’t want to you to have a brain cramp when you could be enjoying the evening MSM.
Comment by Andy — 06.07.05 @ 8:28 pm
DS: “Ummm… On this blog, I’ve seen people’s Christian belief’s questioned with no reference to the Bible.
Would that be ’some’ or ‘most’ people? And would that be ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ Christian beliefs?
Comment by Andy — 06.07.05 @ 8:32 pm
That would be “some” and it’s only “liberal’s” who are questioned.
Ya know what? I’m ma gonna say this again.
There is NO way a person of ANY faith can RIGHTLY support the death penalty as it is currently implemented, because there is the chance that a person innocent of the crime, will be convicted of the crime.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.07.05 @ 9:33 pm
I have no problem with using DNA to prove once and for all the guilt of someone.
If DNA confirms the guilt, then schluß with the appeals process and let the hangman get on with it at dawn. If it proves innocence, then by all means set ‘em free, but if ambigous, it’s back to the appeals process.
I wonder how many on deathrow would demand DNA testing under the above criteria?
OTOH, I take a VERY dim view of ambitious prosecuters who insist on fighting to keep someone behind bars, when DNA has clearly proved innocence.
Other than all that, the current process is the rule of law, even when sometimes flawed. Would you like me to back up my opinion with ’some’ or ‘many’ verses?
Comment by Andy — 06.07.05 @ 9:46 pm
I have the same dim view, including the view of Virginia pols who want to allow evidence in cases to be destroyed 10 business days after conviction.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.07.05 @ 10:14 pm
I agree, the public can well afford the expense.
Comment by Andy — 06.07.05 @ 10:27 pm
Baklava, I got a better quote from Powerline, altho it makes me wonder where the GOP were on this when they shoulda fillabustered:
“ Ed Whelan demonstrates just how far off base Democrats and their MSM supporters are when they claim that Democratic obstruction of the president’s judicial nominees is merely a continuation of the approach used by Republicans during the Clinton administration. Whelan reminds us that one Clinton appointee
had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl
Scouts as organizations that perpetuate
stereotyped sex roles and had proposed
abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day
and replacing them with a single androgynous
Parent’s Day. [That nominee had also] called
for an end to single-sex prisons on the
theory that if male prisoners are going to
return to a community in which men and women
function as equal partners, prison is just
the place for them to get prepared to deal
with women. [The nominee] had opined that a
manifest imbalance in the racial composition
of an employer’s work force justified
court-ordered quotas even in the absence of
any intentional discrimination on the part
of the employer. But then it was discovered
that while operating [her] own office for
over a decade in a city that was
majority-black, this nominee had never had
a single black person among [her] more than
50 hires.
The nominee was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Senate confirmed her appointment to the Supreme Court by a vote of 96-3.“
Comment by Andy — 06.07.05 @ 10:43 pm
The reason for filibustering certain nominees is crystal clear for anyone with a modicum of sense. The Dems want no one likely to ascend to the SC who is known to be pro-life.
They tried their best to skewer and destroy Clarence Thomas and when that didn’t work they now resort to filibuster.
After this silly deal expires (three nominees approved in exchange for no rule change) they will return to their obstructionist ways. They’re already filibustering Bolton to the UN. When Bush appoints anyone to the SC, which could happen quite soon, the filibuster will be in full swing unless Bush resigns and appoints a liberal.
Comment by SickAndTired — 06.07.05 @ 11:43 pm
Sounds pretty mainstream to me Andy
Comment by Baklava — 06.08.05 @ 12:43 am
I’ve read some of her decisions in the past and saw nothing of what the media seems to be covering. At best, the media’s coverage of black non-liberals in roles like this is completely off-base. But should we be surprised?
Certainly not.
Comment by Ron — 06.08.05 @ 7:28 am
Brad-
I find, and this is my own opinion here, that saying that Christ had other missions as well other than to die for our sins necessarily diminishes the idea that he did. Evidence of this abounds as Christians right and left point at themselves in prideful commendation of their righteous walk. Following the example of a perfect life is something we should all do, but He was here to die for our sins.
I suppose you and are probably engaging in some “Chicken or Egg” exercise. I do not discount that Christ did all those things, but I beleive it was as a result of His mission to open Heaven to all those who believe.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 06.08.05 @ 12:17 pm
Chris R., Amen!
Comment by Andy — 06.08.05 @ 12:52 pm
Andy, comment 92:
Seems like the stock market keeps going up, and only the CEOs are making any gains in wealth, not the common worker. I just hope that doesn’t shift. I’d hate to lose my job.
Sorry. I had to search for that Lochner piece.
Since the corporate…er, I mean liberal media is all over this JRB story.
I can’t sift through all the media stories digging down deep about her stances that have been flooding TV, Magazines and Newspapers (Robert said sartcastically).
Oh, here’s one. It says she ought to be confirmed ’cause Bush got 51% of the vote last November.
Drop me some links to fill me in, but please make sure they’re from the liberal media (again, sarcasm).
Comment by Robert — 06.08.05 @ 6:27 pm
Odd, Robert. I am not a CEO. And I’ve gained in wealth. But maybe that is because I work hard, and live within my means. And never expect anything that I didn’t provide for myself.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.08.05 @ 7:37 pm
Robert, how about she should be confirmed because SHE got re-elected with 76% of the vote, which is a higher return than Bush got.
As for Biz/Econ 101, do the math.
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/
The government is enabled to hire people to do the things it sets out to do by the revenues it is able to collect (taxes). Without that tax base, it has to cut back on programs. Naturally everyone has a different opinion as to what is important. One only has to see the EU in action to see that high unemployment is directly related to the tax rate.
The Laffer curve demonstrates that there is a sweet spot above which revenues will fall. If, for example, you think out-sourcing is bad here, you should see Europe. Also, it has always been said that the backbone of any economy is the small business. If Papa State is going to take 50+% of your profits, why bother starting your own business?
The essence of Lochner vs NY was that the general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this includes the right to purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power.
Liberty of contract relating to labor includes both parties to it; the one has as much right to purchase as the other to sell labor.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=198&invol=45
Progressives tried to infringe upon that right by slipping an article under the Health Code to enforce a maximum of 60hrs/week.
Simply put if all you want to do is work 40hrs/week, that’s your business and good luck trying to get rich. The French thot themselves too clever by half and mandated a 35 hr/week and wound up seeing unemployment go up into double digits. It would have been even higher if not for a law that prevented firing/laying off people without going thru redtape.
As a result, companies, stuck with deadweights slog on and hope the deadweights quit or die before the biz does. Due to increased labor costs, businesses are unable to reinvest in equipment. For those reasons, businesses also avoid hiring new people.
So we see the law of unintended consequences has made the labor market less fluid/dynamic and more dangerous to the point that hastening an employee’s unfortunate departure is a viable option.
I continue to be amazed at pinheads with no experience in business whatsoever thinking that they’re smarter than the average owner and proceed to destroy the geese laying golden eggs.
Comment by Andy — 06.08.05 @ 8:47 pm
When I read this post by LaShawn….
….my mouth hung open. One of the things I love about LaShawn is her honesty, but I’ve never seen more honesty and truthfulness in my life than what LaShawn wr…
Trackback by Media Lies — 06.08.05 @ 9:31 pm
Two down…
…and a lot more to go. Janice Rogers Brown, who was “out of the mainstream” (according to Dems) has been confirmed to the DC Circuit Court today by a vote of 56-43. Seeing as how there are 55 Republicans, I…
Trackback by ConservativeOutpost.com — 06.08.05 @ 9:39 pm
From Andy: “I continue to be amazed at pinheads with no experience in business whatsoever thinking that they’re smarter than the average owner and proceed to destroy the geese laying golden eggs.”
Right smack dab on the money, Andy. I get physically ill every time some knuckleheaded career politician or tenured university liberal, people who have never had to meet a payroll in their lives or even had to exist in the real world, starts to condescendingly “explain” to me how to run my business.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.09.05 @ 11:20 am
SCSIwuzzy:
Congratulations on being born with all your limbs and mental faculties.
You are certainly above average, since the average american has seen a decline in wealth in the past 32 years. (the lazy bastards).
Andy:
Corporate America thanks you for your support of slave and child labor. I’m sure you’ll be rewarded handsomely.
Comment by Robert — 06.09.05 @ 1:44 pm
“Corporate America thanks you for your support of slave and child labor.”
Huh? You want to run that one by us once more?
Comment by RedBeard — 06.09.05 @ 2:23 pm
Thanks for asking that RedBeard. I thought it was just me.
Comment by Renee — 06.09.05 @ 2:31 pm
I’m just easily confused, Renee.
See, my small business is a corporation, yet we’re not using slaves nor child labor. We must have missed the briefing from Justice Brown on how we’re supposed to be doing that stuff. 
Comment by RedBeard — 06.09.05 @ 2:43 pm
RedBeard and Robert,
It’s what’s wrong with liberals on the economics subject. While we know that liberals are well-intentioned (on the economics subject) they do not understand economics (or what capitalism means) and subsequently opine with the belief that conservatives are “evil” or “not well intentioned” and “mean-spirited” and therefore it escapes us but people like Robert actually write things as if we beleive in child labor.
Those like Robert will continue to lose elections until they start rejecting their own minds opinion that conservatives actually want child labor or churches to burn or racism or the destruction of the environment, etc.
It is up to Robert to rise up to the level of a civil debate about economic policies or continue with the SAME pattern of believing things about what we believe when we don’t believe them.
Comment by Baklava — 06.09.05 @ 2:46 pm
Robert,
So you agree, that all it takes to be successful in America is having all of your limbs and mental faculties? Good.
So does that mean that your definition of the average American is that of a disabled person? Or that of the chronicly lazy?
I wonder, which set of talking points are you reading off of, and what their definition of wealth is. Care to share? Or will you just reply back with meaningless snark?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.09.05 @ 2:58 pm
“You are certainly above average, since the average american has seen a decline in wealth in the past 32 years. (the lazy bastards).”
Where are you getting that stat from, some DNC talking point? That sounds like you lifted it straight off some Kerry/Edwards commercial.
You must be talking about all those Americans who complain becuase they spend more than what they have.
Can we see some sources, please?
Comment by Chris Roberts — 06.09.05 @ 8:44 pm
Robert, since the others have covered most of the bases, I’ll have to settle for just giving you the reading assigmnment and homework you requested.
Reading Assignment:
–In Defense of Employment-at-Will
where enforced job security is actually economic slave labor.
http://www.mises.org/story/1821
–Mass. Probes Longshoremen’s Union Payroll
where union insiders ensure nepotism at the expense of the working stiffs
http://www.forbes.com/business/services/feeds/ap/2005/06/09/ap2085978.html
R