Is Jesus watching that with you? 
At a church retreat a guy mentioned how he tried to hold himself accountable on his viewing habits by remembering that Jesus was always with him. The downside was that he told this to his wife. When he would be watching something questionable she’d ask, “Is Jesus watching that with you?”
—
Men’s Synchronized Swimming – one of my all-time favorite SNL skits. “I’m not that strong a swimmer . . . I can’t swim.”
—
The Pachyderm on negative rights part I and part II (check it out – it is more interesting than it sounds!) and why people often have the concept of healthcare “rights” backwards.
When Presidential candidates state that there is a “right to health care”, they are missing a piece: “without government intrusion.” The government should not choose our doctors, our method of treatment, nor whether or not we choose to seek health care for a particular issue. As the “right to health care” has become a positive right (i.e. the right to government-sponsored health care), we are losing the negative right (to seek health treatment without government interference).
—
Craig departs, Left’s hypocrisy remains - Senator Craig didn’t follow his moral code too well, but the Republicans held their code and told him to move on. Now about the Left . . .
—
The horrors of political correctness – This does not mean that all gays are pedophiles. It does mean that political correctness can have serious consequences.
—
Top 10 reasons to stop the ACLU - Actually, I have some things in common with the ACLU. We both think the First Amendment is important. They think it prevents people from exercising their faith in the public square, but I think the Amendment protects it.
We both think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are important. But the ACLU thinks that those documents guarantee the right to stick a fork in a baby’s head and suck out her brains. I disagree.
—
Filed under: Politics, Weekly roundup
Craig is clinging on for dear life- even considering pulling his resignation. Worst part though, he might have Constitutional grounds. Afterall, the constitution states that a congressman can’t be arrested or detained while on his way to congressional session to cast a vote (and he did cast at least one vote in a session later in the same day.
“When he would be watching something questionable she’d ask, “Is Jesus watching that with you?” ”
Not a bad idea. Even greater may be to think the same thing as you go to spend your money…
We read the gospel as if we had no money, and we spend our money as if we know nothing of the gospel.
~Jesuit theologian John Haughey
“Top 10 reasons to stop the ACLU”
How would we go about stopping them?
Thanks for the link!
Michelle should have also included this little issue: gay men are much more likely to get AIDS than are any other group.
I’ve never understood anti-death penalty, pro-abortion people. I mean, really – it’s not okay to kill Ted Bundy, but it is okay to kill your child whose only crime was being conceived?
Of course, the fact that these people ALSO oppose Second Amendment rights – which were spelled out pretty explicitly – enrages me.
“but it is okay to kill your child whose only crime was being conceived?”
You are missing a crucial point…the child is inconveniencing someone, so that makes it okay.
(Smacks head)
Silly me.
Is Jesus Watching with You?
We recently talked about that in my high school Sunday School class. The students hope that he is not, but finally decided that they fear that he is.
I have a really good group of kids, but they are pretty reluctant to change their viewing habits.
What should be the proper conservative perspective on laws concerning homosexuality? Particularly among fellow Republicans?
First, we must acknowledge that the Supreme Court decision in the Texas case [Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized homosexuality] exists. Second, we deplore the decision because it is a departure from states’ rights-but I think it would be a very serious blunder to deplore the decision because we find homosexuality icky. The world has moved beyond the point where our society arrogates the right to criminalize unseemliness in private, consensual, adult sex. We like to think of ourselves as far more enlightened than the Victorians and we regard them as being a culture locked in irrational sexual taboos. But it was Lady Astor, very much a Victorian, who said, “you can do anything you like in public providing you don’t frighten the horses.”
Second, we must recognize the tides of jurisprudence, culture, and public consensus are flowing against us. The Supreme Court opinion is very unlikely to be reversed, so the law has already moved substantially against the traditional “conservative” position. Concurrently, the legal and social advances of homosexuals in our society are unlikely to be reversed. The homosexual community is an exceedingly active and effective lobby who can only be expected to campaign vigilantly for their own perceived rights. They are winning the battle. Conservatives who stand against them are impotently standing athwart history and must expect an unrelenting series of Larry Craig type incidents which increasingly alienate us from the general public. I think a truly conservative approach to the issue of homosexuality is to distinguish between that which is tolerable and that which is not because it conflicts with a competing higher value. For example, private homosexual sex between consenting adults is something that a true conservative who respects individual liberty should have little trouble concluding that is an area not for the Lawgiver but for the Redeemer. The flagrant, obnoxious, in your face primping and even soliciting, should be outlawed because it is repugnant to a higher value, which is the welfare of our children. Likewise proselytizing of our children in the school system. Homosexual marriage can be opposed because it degrades a higher institution, heterosexual marriage. Civil unions, on the other hand, should be easy for a conservative to tolerate because he believes in the freedom of contract.
Third, as conservatives we fear, above all things, intrusive government. We should be wary lest we tolerate government peccadilloes against homosexuals because we are disgusted by them. As conservatives we are rightly or reluctant to turn to the government for solutions to social problems. To the degree that we regard homosexuality as a “problem” we should be very reluctant to look to the criminal law system as the solution. That means that we must be careful not to criminalize or even stigmatize homosexuality because we find it repugnant. Conversely, we must not be intimidated by political correctness from insisting that the law protect our children from physical, psychological and educational abuse. We must be careful to punish acts where appropriate, but not the status. Neither should we tolerate that the status be exalted. We should act only when the horses are frightened.
So all of this brings us to the political implications of the Craig scandal. I do not think it is necessary to consider what to do about Senator Larry Craig, he is a problem in the process of resolving itself and I have no doubt that he will not be the Senator from Idaho on January 2, 2008. His senatorial career is virtually over. But I dodge the issue, what should be done about Senator Larry Craig if he does not go voluntarily? He should be shunned by the party and all support for him should be withdrawn not because he is a homosexual but because he is a damn hypocrite. Craig did not do much of anything legally wrong-he did not frighten the horses-if but he brings disgrace to the party by his flagrant hypocrisy. And the party must rid itself of him because failure to do so would lay it open to the charge of hypocrisy. He represented the party in the United States Senate for the state of Idaho and he lied to us about matters of morality and “family values.” It is one thing to have a rot in the body of the party and to remove that rotten apple from the barrel and quite another thing to regularize perversity as the Democrats have done in similar circumstances.
What to do about other homosexuals? Do we welcome them into the party? I should think so, so long as they are open and otherwise comport themselves in sync with conservative values. That is, when they are not hypocrites.
Ironically, the remarks of Barney Frank seemed to me to be the best placed of this controversy. Of course he did not object to Craig’s homosexuality and thought he should remain in the Senate. But he did criticize the man’s hypocrisy. In this Barney Frank struck home. So long as we as conservatives attack homosexuals for their status as homosexuals rather than for their overt acts which are repugnant to a higher value, we are open to the hypocrisy charge. And every time a Republican homosexual is outed, we will become a laughingstock. We are open to the charge that we are hypocrites when we invoke the criminal law to enforce our predilections about sex because we are the party which says it stands for individual liberty and limited government. The Democrats say we intrude government into the bedroom and in this case they are right. So, when they say the same thing about abortion, we cannot effectively deny the charge even though a much higher value-a baby’s life-is at stake.
We fall into this hypocrisy trap when we make the fundamental mistake respecting the nature of homosexuality vis-à-vis society. Democrats accuse us of hypocrisy because closet homosexuals within our ranks preach “family values.” Why do we let the Democrats conflate these two issues? Because we have done so ourselves. Homosexual activity in private between consenting adults who are not married constitute no threat to my marriage. Nor do they constitute a threat to the institution of marriage. Adultery poses a threat to the adulterer’s marriage whether the adultery is homosexual or heterosexual. The adulterer is not a greater hypocrite because his adultery is homosexual. I submit that no-fault divorce is a far graver threat to the institution of marriage than is the fact of homosexuality in our society.
Re, “Michelle should have also included this little issue: gay men are much more likely to get AIDS than are any other group.”
Perhaps.
Meat eaters are much more likely to get colon cancer.
Tobacco users are much more likely to get lung cancer, or mouth cancer.
Krispy Kreme eaters are more likely to become gluttons if they’re not careful.
The AIDS correlation to homosexual behavior means squat.
Though I believe that there are indeed many who find the thought of homosex repugnant, the fact that Craig was allegedly soliciting homosexual contact is irrelevant. He could just as easily been seeking your standard whore and the reaction of the Party would be the same. So to say he’s a hypocrite because he’s gay isn’t as accurate as saying he’s a hypocrite because he’s a married man seeking sex elsewhere. That’s an important distinction.
Some might say that such a notion isn’t true considering Guiliani is carrying so much attention and he’s divorced and such. But it’s a bit different to have done something than to be caught in the act of doing the very same thing. Craig was caught in the act, so they say.
And it is true that to speak on family values, but to fail to adhere to those tenants one preaches, does not necessarily mean hypocrisy. It does mean human failure, and one would hope our leaders are a bit stronger in character, even if that’s too much to expect of anyone.
And what’s the big deal with krispy Kremes anyway? It’s like eating air.
Oooooh, but it’s sweeeeeeet, yuuuuuummmmmy air.
Welp, I just refamilairized myself with the history and actual statements and actions by the ACLU, and while I don’t adhere to all its positions, it looks like I do adhere to more than half of ‘em, and I do think the ACLU is a good antidote to organizations that, IMHO, are equally loony but on the far right.