Responsible Journalism
Peggy Noonan offers left- and right-winged examples of the level to which our national discourse has sunk: A few days ago, I was sent a link to a screed by MSNBC's left-wing anchorman Ed Schultz, in which he explained opposition to the president's health-care reform. "The Republicans lie. They want to see you dead. They'd rather make money off your dead corpse. They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don't have anything for us." Next, a link to the syndicated show of...
You Lie!
I finished up the history of Southern Seminary. I couldn’t help it. It was a riveting read. I knew the conservatives would win in the end, I just couldn’t guess how Providence would manage it. The story was worse than I expected. When liberal-moderates realized that they were losing both the denomination and its flagship seminary, they embarked on a policy of obfuscation. “Obstructivism,” Wills called it. “Lying” would not be too strong. “Liar” and “Hitler” have the same pedigree in debate...
Have Another Tilt at It
Nathan Wilson summarizes a position he obviously doesn't take: People are raped in this world, and rape is evil. Because evil exists, there must be no God. But then he shows where that position ends up: Because there is no God—no authoritative standard over creation—the badness of rape downgrades to a mere matter of societal taste. Ethnic cuisine, ethnic ethics. In God’s absence rape is no longer fundamentally evil. In our country, you’ll get confined to a cell (if caught and convicted), but...
A Truly Great Line from a Truly Great Book
I'm still thoroughly enjoying—and receiving historical instruction from—Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009. I just got through the major fight liberal-moderate president Duke McCall had in the 1950s with a group of liberal-moderate faculty. McCall won, and because he was not viewed as liberal, rank and file Southern Baptists viewed his victory as a purge of unsound theology from the school. But they weren't quite right. Wills' little line at the end of this paragraph is...
Jesus and Adam Smith
From American Vision: What would Jesus have done if confronted with the new technology [of horseless carriages]? Would He have endorsed the mass production of the automobile when it was first introduced to the American public knowing that it was a polluter? Actually, Jesus would have said little. He would have allowed common sense and market forces to determine how the new technology would be used. This troubles me. Jesus was not a Republican, much less a free-market fiscal conservative....