« Parasitical Parable | Main | LDS View of Atonement Clarified »

September 05, 2007

Comments

We should also not forget that he was an enemy of our Constitutional Republic.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders/

(copy to here to link)

Alan, I have a question for you: what should be done to the man who is the enemy of the source of order and authority in a society?

Again we are reminded just how caring, sensative, inclusive, tolerant, and loving liberals are.

To take the opportunity to get a shot in on a political enemy at the announcement of their death - well, I would say it is beneath you Alan. But it obviously isn't.

Does your obsession with your political opponents not even end with their death? Really ugly.

Organizing a movement to exert influence and elect representatives in agreement with them, and encourage judicial appointments they prefer is a vital part of our Constitutional Republic, not the act of an enemy to it.

Filter out the classic Rolling Stone hyperbole and editorial opposition to the conservative movement and that's what you have.

Notable efforts in the past include the abolitionist movement, womens' suffrage movement, labor reform movement, and prohibition.

Plenty of liberal and conservative groups do these very things today. Groups focused on single-issues, and groups focused on wide ranges of issues. From big labor, to alternative lifestyles, to animal activists to pro-censorship groups, business interests, financial institutions, etc.

But surely you knew that?

"We should also not forget that he was an enemy of our Constitutional Republic."

Just like every Founding Father and other great Americans. Try learning some history sometime.

"Alan, I have a question for you: what should be done to the man who is the enemy of the source of order and authority in a society?"

Hi Amy, your wording is too vague. Assuming we are dealing with actions that don't involve conspiracy or incitement to commit a crime, nothing should be done except challenging him in open debate. That being said, would you mind defining "source"?

Also the term "order and authority" in the context of "society" is a usage with with I am uncomfortable. Like "homeland" and similar terms, these concepts seem tied to another continent and another, less happier time.

Hi Eric and Lumbergh, Kennedy was a Dominionist and his vision for the United States went far beyond our normal political give and take. We should not lose sight of the fact that he wished to use the political process to end the political process.

Sometimes it is appropriate to let an individual's sins die with him and other times not. As Kennedy made a significant contribution towards a nation worse than the one he was born into, it seems appropriate to take note of that fact when he leaves it.

Wow, I had no idea.

And of course, Alan has to immediately get in a nasty potshot instead of 1) taking into consideration the gospel presented in this post and applying it to his own life or 2) just showing the normal, human consideration that one shows upon hearing of the death of a public figure - someone who may have had different views than him, but who wasn't a criminal or anything like that.

Sad indeed.

All right, let me put it more simply. Do you think Kennedy was guilty of something--not legally, but morally, as an "enemy of the Constitutional Republic" who undermined the Constitution? And do you feel anger towards him for this?

"Sometimes it is appropriate to let an individual's sins die with him and other times not."

And who decides - you?
Two words Alan: No Class.

You libs just need to do a better job of hiding your hatred. It really makes you look judgemental. I heard a Hollywood star on TV the other night saying that no one should judge unless you were on a jury. The Hollywood liberal isn't wrong is he?

"As Kennedy made a significant contribution towards a nation worse than the one he was born into, it seems appropriate to take note of that fact when he leaves it."

So you can't wait unitl after the funeral to let the world know that you hate the guy? Seems like a rather extreme case of lack of self-control to me.

Once again your definition of "worse" is based on do I agree with Alan or not - so it is completely arbitary.

Dr. Kennedy was born into the nation on November 3, 1930. At that time, we had no social security, very little health care coverage, no welfare benefits, and a segregated society. So you are saying that he contributed to a nation worse that that? How so?

Liberal or Conservative - I always find it difficult to critize those who have contributed more to society than I have. You would do well to follow that example.

It's in these moments that I am extremely proud to be a conservative. We just aren't this mean-spirited and classless.


>>We should not lose sight of the fact that he wished to use the political process to end the political process.

I have to admit that it's somewhat discouraging to me that after all the time you've spent with us, you would still believe such an utterly ridiculous statement gathered from an article that appears to have been written by Rita Skeeter.

You don't understand Christians, Alan. Not in the least. You see things in us that are completely foreign to us, as you want to see them. I never dare to hope that you'll someday agree with us, but I would settle for you wanting to understand us.

The Christian Quote of the Day in my inbox this morning seems appropriate:

"Like many of the leaders and teachers [in the church], perhaps I failed to prepare people for the way of suffering. I had not suffered much myself and did not help people to be ready for it. But the fact is: when you follow Jesus, what happened to Him happens to you."
--Todd H. Wetzel (b.1946), Steadfast Faith [1997]

Less anyone think that this is an isolated incident:

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/12768

Precious in the sight of the LORD Is the death of His godly ones. Ps 116:15

Alan,
Amy's question is a good one and you need to consider the "implications" of your view. If Kennedy is as evil to the Contitutiona Republic as you say, shouldn't he have been legally prosecuted?

I don't think you are fully considering the implications of your claim.

Alan,

Do the terms "Hate Speech", "Fairness Doctrine", and Judical Activism bother you also?
As I recall Dr. Kennedy urged change from the bottom by Christians getting involved in the process like voting and running for local and national office. (is that a violation of a constitutional republic?) I can't think of even one liberal social construct that isn't imposed on the socitey from the top down usually by some unelected black robed oligarchy (i.e. the 9th circus court of appeals who by the way deemed the term "natural family" as hate speech. Another leftist example of a small unelected group of liberals telling us what we cannot say and thereby telling us what we may not think.
The sad implications from those who would disparage Dr. Kennedy is a false belief that his political ideas were "religious" and the secular lefts ideas are "neutral".
Grow up.
My God Bless and comfort the family and friends of Dr. Kennedy.

alan said: "Kennedy was a Dominionist"

Do you even know what that means? A Dominionist believes that the nation must be turned to God by turning the hearts of the people, one at a time. Dominionists believe that the law cannot do this, nor can it serve any moral purpose -- self-described Dominionists are libertarians.

That's the meaning of the word, as applied by the group that calls itself Dominionists (AKA "Christian Reconstructionism", led largely by Rushdoony (who was/is a total libertarian, by the way) and D. James Kennedy. And yes, the charges against them as such are entirely false; the Rolling Stones article makes that unclear by entirely repurposed quotations and guilt by association (i.e. because this one person attempted to force a bad law, ALL conservative Christians are Dominionists and are attempting to force the same bad law!).

-Billy

Don't be too hard on Alan. He's playing his part very well, as "Devil's Advocate". He is here to help us better understand our own positions.

Blessed be the name of the LORD for saving a sinner like D. James Kennedy and granting him eternal life in the presence of the King of glory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>Amy's question is a good one and you need to consider the "implications" of your view.

I'm actually not trying to make a point about Kennedy; I'm hoping to get an idea of Alan's view of justice.

>Don't be too hard on Alan. He's playing his part very well, as "Devil's Advocate". He is here to help us better understand our own positions.

I'm inclined to agree, in that, what better time to make a point than when opposing views are so easily contrasted.

There have been quite a few times I wished I would have made a point at the expense of another's feelings - because it was opportune, and the point was not likely to have nearly the same weight under normal circumstances.

Good for you, Alan. The only gripe I have is that it was off topic. But who knows when it will come up again, right?

As far as D. James Kennedy being an enemy of our Constitutional Republic, any sufficient majority can change the Constitution to be what they want, including the godless and the Christian - but we don't hear the complaints from the godless when it's going *their* way.

It seems to me that there is a standard you believe the Constitution ought to be obliged to adhere to. Where does this standard come from?

I'm gonna miss his show on KBRT it was pretty good


Actually now that I’m thinking of this question, I really don’t understand it:

"If you were to stand before God and answer Him why you should enter Heaven, what would you say?"

Your dad said that he wasn't good enough to enter Heaven. But no one is good enough to enter heaven. We enter heaven via the cross. What other answer could one give?

I don’t see why someone would bother to talk about their works accomplished in this life, because man is not saved via works.

Once someone has become Christian, and accepted jesus, they put their name on the door list. It would be like going to a restaurant and, after the waiter finds your name and reservation, he would ask, “Why should I give you a table?”

Maybe some peeps can provide some sample answers cuz I’m lost…

Congratulations Tony - you answered the question correctly.

Unforuntately, the vast majority of the public not only don't know what the correct answer is - they have never even thought about it seriously.

Anyone who has worked with EE for any length of time has also come to the sad conclusion that many Christians don't know the answer to question #2 either.

"The only gripe I have is that it was off topic."

So, you are saying that Alan went off topic to take a swipe at a conservative at the announcement of his death? That is so unlike him.

Alan,

Do you see yourself as better than Dr. Kennedy? Why/Why not?

Hi Robert, Probably not, I do, however, make better choices in the political and cultural arenas.

William, the "one heart" thing is meaningless if it leads those who believe it to vote as part of a coalition that winds up electing corrupt authoritarians.

Lumbergh wrote:

"Dr. Kennedy was born into the nation on November 3, 1930. At that time, we had no social security, very little health care coverage, no welfare benefits, and a segregated society. So you are saying that he contributed to a nation worse that that? How so?"

Kennedy was child during the New Deal, our health care system is dysfunctional due, in large part, to the political choices Dr. Kennedy advocated and to my knowledge he wasn't active in the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. If he was let us know.

"All right, let me put it more simply. Do you think Kennedy was guilty of something--not legally, but morally, as an "enemy of the Constitutional Republic" who undermined the Constitution? And do you feel anger towards him for this?"

Hi Amy, fair questions. In another post you hoped that 200 years from now we would look back at abortion and see how wrong we were to deny pre-birth personhood.

I would hope that in 200 years we would look at the cultural and political views of Dr. Kennedy much as we view the Salem witch trials of the late 17th century. I don't feel anger towards John Hathorne, I just don't get him.

He clearly was an intelligent man, i don't know what was in his heart, but if we are to be judged by the results of our actions then we do have a moral problem here.

Andrew Sullivan wrote a post yesterday that could serve as Dr. Kennedy's obituary;

"Peter the Third abolished the torture-chamber, and the Russian star chamber. Catherine the Second abolished torture. Alexander the First abolished it over again. Evidence given under torture is legally inadmissible, and any magistrate applying torture is himself liable to prosecution and severe punishment.
That is so: and all over Russia, from the Bering Straits to the Crimea, men suffer torture. When flogging is unsafe, other means are used - intolerable heat, thirst, salt food; in Moscow the police made a prisoner stand barefooted on an iron floor, at a time of intense frost; the man died in a hospital," - "The Memoirs of Alexander Herzen" (1830).

Notice how Herzen was quite clear that hypothermia, stress positions, dietary manipulation and extreme heat are all clearly torture. That definition - once taken for granted - is something rejected by almost all the Republican candidates, apart from McCain. Notice also how it occurred in Russia despite an official ban. And yet the president of the United States has fought tenaciously to retain it in his arsenal of war-powers. America was once a leader in human rights. Under Bush, we're becoming a global force for the normalization of torture. It spreads, is spreading, and is very hard to stop. And America is legitimizing it in every ghastly prison and by every hideous regime in the world."

That is the reality to which Dr. Kennedy contributed and no one reading this will still live before the stain he helped put on this nation is erased. That, not heart warming pastoral tales, is his legacy and what history will remember him for.

Well, I was hoping to make a point about the principle of the question I was asking (i.e., about God), but you're so all over the map, I'll just have to wait for the next time and try again. :)

"Kennedy was child during the New Deal, our health care system is dysfunctional due, in large part, to the political choices Dr. Kennedy advocated and to my knowledge he wasn't active in the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. If he was let us know."

I'm not sure what your statement (above) has to do with your original statement and my reply. I assume that's what you were responding to since you quoted me.

You used the phrase "the world he was born into." The world he was born into was November 3, 1930. Would you like to "clarify your statement?"

I'll paste the original quotes below in case you lost track of the conversation:

"As Kennedy made a significant contribution towards a nation worse than the one he was born into, it seems appropriate to take note of that fact when he leaves it."

"Dr. Kennedy was born into the nation on November 3, 1930. At that time, we had no social security, very little health care coverage, no welfare benefits, and a segregated society. So you are saying that he contributed to a nation worse that that? How so?"


Since you are the one making the charges (assuming he wasn't involved in the civil rights movement), I'll let you do the research.


Sigh, for your benefit Lumbergh, in those areas of the public square in which he chose to be active, Dr. Kennedy left thigs worse for his efforts. Herbert Hoover, for all his faults, didn't try to assume monarchical powers and institute torture or unparalleled corruption. The Republican Party was a legitimate political Party. Considering that Dr. Kennedy spent his energies trying to undo much of what you consider to be our progress since his birth, your quibbles are are little disingenuous.

Hi Amy, sorry, I did the best I could with your question. He made bad decisions and had bad cultural values, what else can I say?

Alan - again instead of answering my question, you went off topic and took another cheap shot at someone who just passed away.

Have you no self-restraint? Seriously?

I can't imagine anyone that I have that kind of animosity for. Does Dr. Kennedy really deserve that kind of "hate speech" after reading of his death? Get a grip on yoursef man.

I understand that your modus operandi is to muddy the waters when you discover that you are in error. No worries - I am always glad to set the record straight.

Maybe you missed it last time. Here are the quotes again. Please explain what the first quote has to do with the last two:

"Kennedy was child during the New Deal, our health care system is dysfunctional due, in large part, to the political choices Dr. Kennedy advocated and to my knowledge he wasn't active in the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. If he was let us know."

"As Kennedy made a significant contribution towards a nation worse than the one he was born into, it seems appropriate to take note of that fact when he leaves it."

"Dr. Kennedy was born into the nation on November 3, 1930. At that time, we had no social security, very little health care coverage, no welfare benefits, and a segregated society. So you are saying that he contributed to a nation worse that that? How so?"


Since you are the one making the charges (assuming he wasn't involved in the civil rights movement), I'll let you do the research.

Amy's comment (yesterday) brought these quotes to mind:

"Diagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the left, and he is likely to think you selfish, a sell-out, insensitive, possibly evil."
-Joseph Epstein, "True Virtue", The New York Times Magazine, November 24, 1985, p. 95

"The first is the utter contempt of the left's intellectual organs for the intellectual life of the right. In fact, they are rarely aware that there is an intellectual life on the right. They work with a caricature of the right as a band of "stupid (rich) white men," to borrow a phrase. This caricature makes it impossible for the left to see its opponent for what it is. Thus if "know your enemy" is among the first rules of politics, the left starts out at a serious disadvantage."
- Uriah Kriegel, "Ideas Have Consequences, Don't They?" [from Tech Central Station]

By the way, Tony asked a really good question that you never got around to answering:

"As far as D. James Kennedy being an enemy of our Constitutional Republic, any sufficient majority can change the Constitution to be what they want, including the godless and the Christian - but we don't hear the complaints from the godless when it's going *their* way."

"It seems to me that there is a standard you believe the Constitution ought to be obliged to adhere to. Where does this standard come from?"

>By the way, Tony asked a really good question that you never got around to answering

You're my idol, Tony! :D

I fear your attempts, Amy & Lumbergh, are probably futile - Alan avoids issues of grounding like the plague. The most I've gotten in the past is the equivalent of shrugged shoulders and dogged attempts to get off that turf as quickly as possible. For Alan, it usually ends in a discussion of utilitarian imperatives.

Alan, do you really not see that this response:

"Hi Amy, sorry, I did the best I could with your question. He made bad decisions and had bad cultural values, what else can I say?"

completely misses Amy's point? We know you think that he made bad decisions and had bad cultural values. We want to know by what standard you are making such judgments. Why are the things he (allegedly) did wrong, on your view? Is it because you just don't like them, or you think that enough people don't like them either, or...? In other words, the discussion here is not on Kennedy's actions, but on your moral judgments.

Alan, ah well…since I've clearly failed to be clever, with a laugh at myself here, I'll just explain extremely unpoetically and most unrefinedly that I was hoping to help you identify with God for a moment and perhaps realize the seriousness of your rebellion--the ways you've worked against Him to make His world worse (as we all have). This is rightly upsetting to God who will accuse you and remind you of your sins forever, just as you would have us do to Kennedy. Your death will not bring you rest from accusation, and you know this is just and right for God to do because you yourself see the rightness of it in your own actions against Kennedy.

Of course the illustration would have been MUCH more interesting and effective in the midst of a conversation, but there you are. I just thought just now, why not throw it out there anyway? Good stuff anyway, though boringly stated (sorry!). I have hope for you yet, Alan. I couldn't care less if you become a conservative, but someday we'll have a real philosophical conversation about principles instead of politics, and you'll see God in all His grace, mercy, holiness, goodness, and forgiveness--real forgiveness. And on that day, I will be so happy, I won't be able to contain myself.

And today I'm just so gloriously happy in God anyway, who proves Himself trustworthy over and over, that all I can say is, God bless us, every one--Alan especially! :)

""Diagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the left, and he is likely to think you selfish, a sell-out, insensitive, possibly evil."
-Joseph Epstein, "True Virtue", The New York Times Magazine, November 24, 1985, p. 95"

Hi Limbergh, that was then and this is now, the last twelve years have created a sorting process. Brad Delong helps us out:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/06/a_proposed_peck.html

Sorry Aaron I just don't get all the fuss about "grounding" - this may help:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/09/human-rights-and-religion-one-more-time.html

My standard is simple; Following his advice has made us less free, less respected, and weaker. How much grounding do I need to be able to value liberty, honor, and strength? Seems to come naturally.

Gosh, Amy I'm probably hopeless but I appreciate the thought. I expect that in 500 days politics will be less critical.

http://www.backwardsbush.com/

I wasn't implying that I'm without fault; just now those faults or my fate don't seem all that important.
I may or may not have a soul but there was the Enlightenment and our Constitution was one of its top products. To me, our politics are about principles, I guess we both hope that scales will fall.

We should however remember another who did make the world a better place:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2uYrmYXsujI&mode=related&search=

(copy to here to link)

Man, this is becoming predictable. Again you ignore my question (and Tony's question that I reposted) and take another pot shot at a guy who just died. Is that all you have? That's just sad.

Here are the questions again that you still haven't answered:
Please explain what the first quote has to do with the last two:

"Kennedy was child during the New Deal, our health care system is dysfunctional due, in large part, to the political choices Dr. Kennedy advocated and to my knowledge he wasn't active in the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. If he was let us know."

"As Kennedy made a significant contribution towards a nation worse than the one he was born into, it seems appropriate to take note of that fact when he leaves it."

"Dr. Kennedy was born into the nation on November 3, 1930. At that time, we had no social security, very little health care coverage, no welfare benefits, and a segregated society. So you are saying that he contributed to a nation worse that that? How so?"

Since you are the one making the charges (assuming he wasn't involved in the civil rights movement), I'll let you do the research.

By the way, Tony asked a really good question that you never got around to answering:

"As far as D. James Kennedy being an enemy of our Constitutional Republic, any sufficient majority can change the Constitution to be what they want, including the godless and the Christian - but we don't hear the complaints from the godless when it's going *their* way."

"It seems to me that there is a standard you believe the Constitution ought to be obliged to adhere to. Where does this standard come from?"


"Hi Limbergh, that was then and this is now, the last twelve years have created a sorting process."

Wow, did that go over your head or what? That's you dude. Go back and read your comments (above). Anyone who disagrees with your wacked out, lunatic left political views is either "evil", a "Dominionist", or an "enemy of our Constitutional Republic."

It's as up to date as your last post. Truth has no expiration date.

And you have proved this one true from your comments on this post alone.

"The first is the utter contempt of the left's intellectual organs for the intellectual life of the right. In fact, they are rarely aware that there is an intellectual life on the right. They work with a caricature of the right as a band of "stupid (rich) white men," to borrow a phrase. This caricature makes it impossible for the left to see its opponent for what it is. Thus if "know your enemy" is among the first rules of politics, the left starts out at a serious disadvantage."
- Uriah Kriegel, "Ideas Have Consequences, Don't They?" [from Tech Central Station]

Another One Bites The Dust...

Did someone mention the "fairness doctrine" in the comments above?

I saw this story last night and it just made me giggle. Keep in mind that this is one of the most powerful AM signals in a large city with a 70% African-American population.

Pay close attention to the 4th paragraph. Alan said that this was not the case in a post about the fairness doctrine a few weeks ago. I guess the station manager must be wrong. Because Alan is never wrong.

WSMB 680 AM shifting from Air America to sports

Thursday, September 6, 2007

Radio station WSMB 680 AM, which had broadcast "Air America" as part of a progressive talk radio format, has switched to an all-sports format with broadcast rights to University of Tennessee and St. Louis Cardinals games.

The Entercom-owned station, now known as Fox Sports Radio 680 WSMB, switched to the new format following its broadcast Saturday of the Tennessee-California football game, said Entercom market manager Clint Sly.

Sly said Air America with its focus on liberal and progressive points of view "had a small following" that was not large enough to sustain the station.

"The advertising support just wasn't there," Sly said. "A number of people sent us e-mails thanking us for giving it the opportunity over the last couple of years, but it all comes down to listener and advertising support."

WSMB began broadcasting Air America in 2005.

Comment:

Air America was a lot of hot air. A lot of whining about George Bush and everything Republican or conservative. Just a little balance in the rhetoric and I think it could have survived, but the constant Bush bashing and dogmatic liberal talking points killed it. Yeah I listen to Rush but I like to hear both sides of the story. Air American just spewed venom, hour after hour and in the end it just committed suicide.

Well there is always the "fairness doctrine" for those who don't know how to turn the dial and find an opposing viewpoint on or of their own.

Lumbergh,

But that's the answer that i gave to Louis 3 blogs ago and he said:

"That, Tony, is a nice pat,formulaic , ubiquitous Christian response to my question."

so i was wondering what i was missing.

Aguilis,

Why am i your idol? huh?

oops that last post was from me

Hi Tony,

It looks like he stuck a big sticky label on your answer. You can't fight against that kind of logic.

Case Closed!

I believe that Alan's rejection of Dr. Kennedy's ministry is related to his rejection of the Gospel preached by Dr. Kennedy so effectively. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, to the extent that he understands it, is offensive, irrelevant or nonsense to him.

Dr. Kennedy's ministry was grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It has not been demonstrated that Dr. Kennedy was "an enemy of our Constitutional Republic."

Alan continues to reject the source of the foundational values that support our Constitutional republic while holding up a product of those values as an ideal! The Founders were clear on the source of these values.

I think all the rational argument and evidence we can provide for the truth of the Christian worldview will not convince him unless we have additional help.

I would join in Amy's prayer that Alan's heart will be transformed by the Holy Spirit.

Hi Lumbergh, you nit-pick, the key word is "contributed", he had nothing to do with the good things you mentioned. If it helps, and as you are easily confused, I will restate my point thusly. D. James Kennedy was an intelligent and talented man. He chose to live a public life. In that public life he chose to use his considerable talents to poison our political life and undermine our Constitution. I happen to believe that a person's death is a good time to honestly evaluate his contributions. Some of you disagree with my evaluation. OK, I can live with that

"By the way, Tony asked a really good question that you never got around to answering:

"As far as D. James Kennedy being an enemy of our Constitutional Republic, any sufficient majority can change the Constitution to be what they want, including the godless and the Christian - but we don't hear the complaints from the godless when it's going *their* way."

Ok:

1. What changes have the "godless" wrought in our Constitution?

2. Do those changes, as you define them, rise to the level of instituting torture as national policy, trashing the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and spearheading an attack on habeas corpus? (partial list)

3. Is this "godless"/ (I guess) "godly" dichotomy a useful descriptor?

"It seems to me that there is a standard you believe the Constitution ought to be obliged to adhere to. Where does this standard come from?"

"Wow, did that go over your head or what? That's you dude. Go back and read your comments (above). Anyone who disagrees with your wacked out, lunatic left political views is either "evil", a "Dominionist", or an "enemy of our Constitutional Republic."

No, sometimes they are just wrong (except where I'm wrong). Rove is an example of evil; wrong and evil are two different things. That Dr. Kennedy was a Dominionist is a matter of record. We may disagree as to the meaning of that term and where it will take us as a nation but that is another matter. I see folks who think like Dr. Kennedy as holding views that undermine our Constitution, that makes them (and him) enemies of that document. That most of them seem to have no problem with the recent attacks on our constitution and even support them would seem to make my point.

Memphis now has three sports radio stations. Hummm.

Hi William, prayers can't hurt so thanks, I guess. The Framers were men whose values, including their religious ones, were largely shaped by the Enlightenment. That is the same Enlightenment that modified Christianity to a less objectionable form (yes, I acknowledge a feedback process). Dr. Kennedy may have been a Christian in some sense but his ministry was also grounded in an extreme view of the relationship between church and state that has nothing to do with our Constitution.

wow, it doesn't seem like anyone is debating about the same thing.

Alan's point is that Dr. Kennedy had a bad political agenda. Well responders, is Alan right? Examine his political history if you will, and see what kind of decisions he made.

And to Alan, it seems the original objection to your post is that it was inappropriate given the man's recent death, and in light of the good he did for evangelism. What were you hoping to accomplish? Given the rather unabashed bias and lack of professionalism of the URL you posted, it's hard to imagine you really wanted to convince us of anything.

In the end, does any of us really want to debate endlessly about this one guy, when our disagreements really are about the values we hold? This guy may(or may not) have had a bad political agenda, but at least, as stated in the OP, he did do some noticeable good, which is more than most bad politicians can say.

Now going off topic:

Alan said: "The Framers were men whose values, including their religious ones, were largely shaped by the Enlightenment."

No, they did not give the Enlightenment the credit and I suggest that it is historically impossible to have the Enlightenment with out the Christianity prior.

So, I completely disagree with your scenario concerning the history.

Alan said: "Enlightenment that modified Christianity to a less objectionable form".

Objectionable to whom: sinners?, you? the Aztec's? Charles DeGaulle? Redundant, I know. Why should I think this a good thing supposing that I, for the sake of argument, grant that "the Enlightenment" actually did modify Christianity.

Back on topic:
Alan said: "Dr. Kennedy may have been a Christian in some sense".

I don't think that I am willing to consider your judgment in this matter. If you want to make a case for Dr. Kennedy having, what you believe, is an adverse impact on our society, you had better get specific. So far, you haven't.

"Hi Lumbergh, you nit-pick, the key word is "contributed", he had nothing to do with the good things you mentioned. If it helps, and as you are easily confused, I will restate my point thusly. D. James Kennedy was an intelligent and talented man. He chose to live a public life. In that public life he chose to use his considerable talents to poison our political life and undermine our Constitution. I happen to believe that a person's death is a good time to honestly evaluate his contributions. Some of you disagree with my evaluation. OK, I can live with that."

Nit-pick? - so it's my fault that you aren't able to accurately articulate your position?

I don't have a crystal ball Alan - I have to go by what you write. I do understand that puts you at a distinct disadvantage.

Even though I reposted my quote several times, you were still somehow able to misquote me. It's almost a miracle. Well, let's try once more:

"Dr. Kennedy was born into the nation on November 3, 1930. At that time, we had no social security, very little health care coverage, no welfare benefits, and a segregated society. So you are saying that he contributed to a nation worse that that? How so?"

What good things did I mention here? Was it no social security, very little health care coverage, no welfare benefits, or a segregated society? I always thought that those were bad things. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Call it nit-picking if you like. It's just another case of you being sloppy and innacurate.

By the way, you never answered the question. All you did was to repeat your mean-spirited attack on a person who just passed away - for the umpteenth time.

"he chose to use his considerable talents to poison our political life and undermine our Constitution."

In a courtroom situation, this would be covered by the "asked and answered" objection. Please re-read this quote:

"Diagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the left, and he is likely to think you selfish, a sell-out, insensitive, possibly evil."
-Joseph Epstein, "True Virtue", The New York Times Magazine, November 24, 1985, p. 95

As stated earlier, it's as relevant as your latest post.

"I happen to believe that a person's death is a good time to honestly evaluate his contributions. Some of you disagree with my evaluation. OK, I can live with that."

That's kind of convenient isn't it? The reason you believe that is because you hate the guy.

I'm guessing that the moment you heard that Martin Luther King had been shot you didn't start writing an article criticizing his adultery problems. Same goes for JFK, FDR, (insert your favorite liberal here), etc.

Here's the test to see if what you did was appropriate. Would you want someone else to do it to you? How about a close family member? Say your wife dies and the moment we hear about it we rush to the internet to tell the world that she was an enemy of the Constitution because she's a liberal. Seem inappropriate, hateful, disrespectful, classless?

"1. What changes have the "godless" wrought in our Constitution?"

"2. Do those changes, as you define them, rise to the level of instituting torture as national policy, trashing the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and spearheading an attack on habeas corpus? (partial list)"

"3. Is this "godless"/ (I guess) "godly" dichotomy a useful descriptor?"


No, no, no - that's not how it works Alan. You answer his question first - then he will answer yours. By the way, how many times was that question posted before you finally decided to respond to it. And by respond to it I mean not answer it again. Why is that?

"No, sometimes they are just wrong (except where I'm wrong)."

If that were the case you wouldn't be constantly accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having sinister intentions. Again, I have to go by your words. Ready Amy's comment again.

"Rove is an example of evil"

One sentence later and you prove my point. By the way, could you be any more obsessed with the guy.

"wrong and evil are two different things."

You mean that evil is sometimes right?

"That Dr. Kennedy was a Dominionist is a matter of record."

Greg wrote an article called "A label is not an argument" you might want to re-visit that.

"I see folks who think like Dr. Kennedy as holding views that undermine our Constitution, that makes them (and him) enemies of that document."

Can you see in this statement what your objective source is? It's you. If they disagree with him, they are enemies of the constition. Completely meaningless.

"That most of them seem to have no problem with the recent attacks on our constitution and even support them would seem to make my point."

Again this is meaningless because you have set yourself up as the objective reference point.

Memphis now has three sports radio stations. Hummm.

Wrong again Alan. Memphis has two sports stations WHBQ and now WSMB. Here's a link if you would like to see what has taken the place of wacko radio in Memphis:
http://www.680wsmb.com/

Don't you love that Fox logo?

730ESPN is in West Memphis, Arkansas and has very little coverage in the Memphis area.

The fact that there was that much competition and they STILL decided to change the format shows how desperate they were to dump the Bush bashing, tree hugging, vegan worshiping network.

How many stations are left in that network now - 50? I'll bet Rush can't sleep at night because he is so worried.

How did you like the part where the PD almost quoted me word for word from my "fairness doctrine" comments?

Sweet!

>>1. What changes have the "godless" wrought in our Constitution?

Materialist (i.e., "godless") thought has not just challenged the Constitution or tried to get around it, it has fundamentally changed the entire Constitution. Very simply, it has led to the idea that we create our own meaning from the text, and the original intent is not what we should or even can look for and submit to--i.e., the Constitution is a "living document" that we shape as time goes on through our preferred interpretations. This means that there is no standard here at all, really; there is only public consensus (or the consensus of a few judges) which can change with the times and declare a new Constitution without democratically changing a word of it, just because they can change the meaning to suit their whims.

>>2. Do those changes, as you define them, rise to the level of instituting torture as national policy, trashing the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and spearheading an attack on habeas corpus? (partial list)

The biggest and most damaging change coming from these ideas occurred when, suddenly, after 200 years, a right to privacy which included the right to kill your unborn child (which, in itself came from the materialist, and extremely dangerous, idea that we can determine who is worthy of rights based on our own arbitrary criteria) was suddenly declared to be part of the Constitution by a few people who had the power to force this idea on everyone else.

This is even more dangerous than anything D. James Kennedy did, because Kennedy attempted to change people's minds in order to change the laws through the democratic process. This, on the other hand, was merely a declaration of a new view of the Constitution (since, by materialist thought, we create the meaning of the text) which we were then forced to accept. The deaths of millions followed and continue with no end in sight.

Somehow, I see the deaths of millions as much worse than finding that terrorists fall under the exception provided for in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger…"; though I still fail to see what Kennedy had to do with that, in any case.

Dr. Kennedy was often seen as somewhat aloof, hard to get to know. Few ever saw him when he wasn't quite reserved.

A memory I'll always carry with me was a very human moment which would probably have embarrassed Dr. Kennedy if he'd seen me see him.

At the time he came to Christ in his twenties, he was a dance instructor. but since becoming a minister, had not danced publicly in decades.

One Sunday night about 15 years ago, the church had a guest choir from a black church or college. The closing hymn was a lively gospel piece, done as Dr. Kennedy walked from the pulpit into the narthex. In the narthex he was alone and he thought, unseen. He didn't see me in a room to the side, where I'd been sitting after arriving late.

Back there, alone, he began to dance to the music, with arms held as though he had an invisible partner. He glided and twirled, and was absolutely spectacular, just having fun, with all the elegance and grace of a Fred Astaire.

Most folks never saw this side of him. I consider myself blessed.

Dr. Kennedy, I'll miss you greatly. You taught me a lot.

Tom Taylor
Fort Lauderdale, FL

Dr. D. James Kennedy, founder and senior pastor for 48 years of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (CRPC) in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., passed away peacefully in his sleep at approximately 2:15 a.m. at his home with his wife and daughter by his bedside, following complications from a cardiac event last December. He was 76. Dates and times for a public viewing and funeral and private interment will be released when available.

"There are all kinds of wonderful things I could say about my dad," said daughter Jennifer Kennedy Cassidy. "But one that stands out is his fine example. He 'walked the walk' and 'practiced what he preached.' His work for Christ is lasting -- it will go on and on and make a difference for eternity."

Dr. Kennedy, who is survived by Anne, his wife of 51 years, and his daughter Jennifer, preached his last sermon from the pulpit of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church on Christmas Eve Sunday 2006. He suffered a cardiac arrest four days later on Dec. 28, and has since been unable to return to the pulpit. The church announced his retirement on Aug. 26, beginning a process to choose his successor, and had planned a tribute worship service honoring the extensive ministry of Dr. Kennedy on Sept. 23.

"I would like to thank all of you for your prayers, cards, kindnesses and encouragement over the past nine months," Mrs. Cassidy said during the retirement announcement. "Our family knows that we have come through this difficult time because of God's grace and your faithful prayers, and it has brought joy to us to see God's faithfulness in all of this."

While hindered by persistent health problems that included asthma, as well as chronic and often severe physical pain from compressed vertebrae due to an injury suffered as a young man, Dr. Kennedy was indefatigable in his ministry work. He said on several occasions how much he looked forward to being free from pain in heaven. He was one of the nation's leading Christian broadcasters and a vigorous and articulate advocate for Christian involvement in public life.

Dr. Kennedy began his pastorate at CRPC in 1959 and is also the founder and president of Coral Ridge Ministries and the founder of Evangelism Explosion, which equips people in every nation and territory to share their faith in Christ. He was also the founder of two leading educational institutions located in Fort Lauderdale: Westminster Academy, a nationally respected Pre-K to 12th grade Christian school and Knox Theological Seminary, a graduate school preparing Christians for ministry as pastors, teachers, and missionaries.

Dr. Kennedy was born Nov. 3, 1930, but his Christian life did not begin until 1953. Sleeping late on a Sunday morning, his radio alarm went off and a preacher's booming voice invaded his slumber. "Suppose you were to die today and stand before God and He were to ask you, 'What right do you have to enter into My heaven?'-- what would you say?"

Dr. Kennedy soon discovered that answer was to trust in Christ alone for eternal life, and shortly after he made that commitment was called into the Gospel ministry. Crediting this radio program for hearing the call to Christianity, he founded WAFG (90.3 FM) in 1974 as an outreach for Christ to the South Florida community.

He began his pastorate at CRPC on June 21, 1959, and from the outset had a vision for global impact. In 1960, he read the words of Jeremiah 33:3 to the handful of people that comprised his then-fledgling congregation, "Call unto Me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know." He then told his small flock, "You know what? I believe we can change the world!"

That surprised many in his audience, but today, despite being a local pastor of one church for nearly five decades, Dr. Kennedy has had a worldwide ministry influence. In 1996, Evangelism Explosion -- through which nearly 5 million people have made commitments to Christ in 2006 alone -- became the first Christian ministry to be established in every nation on earth. Long after his passing, an extensive inventory of Dr. Kennedy's messages will continue through "Truths that Transform," a daily broadcast carried on nearly 750 radio stations across the U.S., and "The Coral Ridge Hour," a weekly television broadcast that airs on more than 400 stations and to 165 nations on the Armed Forces Network.

"We will miss Dr. Kennedy enormously," said Frank Wright, president of the National Religious Broadcasters. "His moral leadership and his legacy of impacting the globe for Jesus Christ is unmatched by few in the history of the Church. It is our desire to honor him by sustaining and multiplying his impact through Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and all the ministries founded by Dr. Kennedy in the years to come."

Viewing and funeral arrangements will be announced shortly. A legacy Web site, http://www.DJamesKennedy.org, has been developed to pay tribute to the life and faith of Dr. Kennedy.

Tom, that was a wonderful story!

Hi Amy, do you mean original meaning or original expected application when you use the term "original intent"? For example, a while back I referred to Taney being wrong on fact based on common understandings in 1787 as opposed to the actual practices at the time and later which were mixed.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/origintent.html

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2006/12/over_at_books_d.html

http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2007/01/the_authority_o.html

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/07/clarence-thomass-originalism.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=949052

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=847164

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=700175

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=510482

Constitutional protestantism:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=510482

http://colinfarrelly.blogspot.com/2007/02/dworkin-lecture-at-oxford.html

RE; your comment on abortion. The right to privacy predates Roe. Would you undo Griswold? here is another take on the Constitution and abortion:

"I argue, among other things, that laws criminalizing abortion violate the
Fourteenth Amendment’s principle of equal citizenship and its prohibition against class legislation. A long history of commentators has argued that abortion rights are secured by constitutional guarantees of sex equality premised on some version
of an antisubordination principle.4 One of the goals of this article is to show that the arguments of these commentators are not novel or fanciful but have deep roots
in the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the arguments I present here, although specifically directed to the abortion controversy, help underscore the constitutional and originalist pedigree of much of the
antisubordination literature."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925558

As you refer to original intent how do you deal with the fact that the Common Law at the time of adoption used quickening as the dividing line?

Using Quirin to justify the denial of due process reflects a gross misunderstanding of how our system is supposed to work. That is why SCOTUS, as well as lower courts, JAG lawyers and others have objected to the way in which the tribunals have been set up. I notice you avoid dealing with institutionaled torture and the gutting of the Fourth Amendment as well as Habeas Corpus.

What you seem to be saying is that you would sacrifice our rights and liberties if it meant criminalizing abortion. That was D. James Kennedy's contribution to our political life - a corps of followers who saw abortion as such an evil that eliminating it was to be valued over everything else.

That consideration is what moved me to comment so candidly and harshly upon his passing.

If I misunderstand you here, my apologies. Please let us know if you view abortion as a largely solvable social problem while things like due process and Habeas Corpus are among the core values that define who we are as a nation.

Hi Tom, I never said he wasn't human, a loving father, a devoted husband and a dedicated Christian. If only he had limited himself to those roles.

Hi Lumbergh, let's see what the spring book says.

Hi William, as they were living in the middle of that period of European history that has come to be called the Enlightenment we can hardly expect them to self consciously reference it. Locke is the cornerstone here and his thought, not an ubiquitous religious backdrop is what is key.

England was Christian in 1600 and it was Christian in 1800. Its governance was quite different. Something happened and it wasn't Christianity.

The comments to this entry are closed.