This is an incredible (unbelievable) statement. Think about it! Here’s the guy the whole Muslim world adores for standing up to Israel and now he’s saying it was all a miscalculation on HIS part. If he had it to do over he would still be in his Beirut offices shuffling papers?
Makes no sense. I predict his remarks will be "revised and extended."

David Warren:

In a column this last week, on the current threat from Iran and its proxies, I asked a naïve, simple question that I will repeat. I observed that no counter-threats have been tabled, nor lines drawn in the diplomatic sandboxes of the West. I asked, why not? Why not say plainly, “If you do this, we will do that.”

It is this inability to deal forthrightly with madmen, that suggests we have lost too many of our own marbles. For why should a man with a gun fear a man with a stick?
___________________________
Do you not fear the wrath of God with so much flouting done on high in America. And there is no protest--no effective protest I mean.
How can Gay Republich endure. Surely God wont allow it.

How can Gay Republich endure. Surely God wont allow it.

Can I ask what exactly this means? What is/are "Gay Republich," and what ought God to do about it/them?

C'mon Bisaal, answer Ethan's question.

Actually, I would rather have Bisaal answer the question of whether Muslims should fear the wrath of God for killing so many Muslims, far more than the USA or the West has. If not, then why should we?

[I suspect Bisaal may live in India, in which case he is 12 hours out of sinc with us. That might delay any answers...]

There were no protests against the Judges
who flouted God. Nobody is picketing them. Nobody asked them to repent. Nobody fled aboard. Doesnt it mean Americans are complicit in the making of an ungodly republic where perverts rampage?.
US doesnt seem to be a force for Good in this world thats why everything it touches turns to dust.
Conservative Indian

"everything it touches turns to dust"?

Good lord, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

There were no protests against the Judges who flouted God.

Er...read the papers.

Nobody is picketing them. Nobody asked them to repent. Nobody fled aboard.

"Fled abroad" - are you serious? One court in one state makes one decision on one peripheral issue, and you think Americans should pack up and move? Where should we have all moved to? Maybe someplace where those people are put in jail?

Doesnt it mean Americans are complicit in the making of an ungodly republic where perverts rampage?

Yes, Americans are complicit in making a republic where individual rights are respected. Where just because a person is from India doesn't mean he can be discriminated against. Just because he practices Islam doesn't mean he can be fired from his job. Just because he's gay doesn't mean he can be denied housing.

We're still working out the edges of how to balance individual civil rights with other concerns. And we always will be. So, in one jurisdiction a court drew that line a little left of where some folks would prefer. And thus God should remove his blessing from us? Honestly? Bisaal, do you have any sense of proportion?

The demonically possessed dont fear your writings.
In India such a Judge might have to deal with a mob.
As for the writings, the Americans dont care to spread their writings.
The Soviets used to sell subsidized the Communist literature in every University in India. They are still popular while US is not.

In India such a Judge might have to deal with a mob.

And you're saying this is a good thing?

Honestly - is the thought of mob justice more palateable to you than the thought that somewhere, two gay guys might be gettin' it on?

Let me ask you again - are you serious that we should be fleeing abroad because one court in one jurisdiction made one decision on one peripheral case that was a bit more liberal than some folks would prefer?

Perversion is individual and exists always but its
enthronement is public and unprecendented and signals serious trouble to the God-fearing.
Thankfully Americans have made some progress recently but an essential fervor is lacking.
Too many arguments and not enough outrage.

There was a time when misogeny was an outrage as well, and considered a perversion - but repealing those laws and enthroning mixed-race couples with the sanction of law was unmitigatedly good. One can argue that gay issues do not map to race issues, and I would understand and, to some extent, agree.

But Bisaal, can you understand that many folks in America look on the gay marriage issue not as "enthroning perversion," but rather as enshrining personal liberty? So that [i]nobody[/i] can tell you who you can and cannot love, marry, buy property with, have children with...the state does not define a family, [i]you[/i] define your family, as your God gives you to understand it?

You can argue that this is unwise policy, as I expect John would do. But to call it an outrageous enthronement of perversion strikes me a fundamentally misunderstanding our country. We try to keep the government out of each others' affairs, not because we agree with every lifestyle or choice everyone else is going to make - but rather because we know that it's the only way to insure each person gets to make his own choices, including ourselves.

I think Bisaal may have a point, but lacks the concepts and language to express it to those outside his belief system. I suspect what we saw in Massachusetts was the tiniest tip of a vast iceberg of a program of radical egotism that wants to destroy nature, that is, the nature of things as they are. And put man in charge.

Gnosticism, you might say.

It's the opposite of what a Catholic would call the sacramental imagination, the deep appreciation of all the stuff that God has created, including us. I suspect that, even if all religion is untrue, this kind of self-centered gnostic thinking is STILL really bad juju for us. (I have vaguely felt this for a long time, but am only now starting to get the concepts to express it.)

Even if there is no God, the "man is like God and can make whatever he wants of the universe" kind of thinking could well be properly called an "outrageous enthronement of perversion."

[Ethan, the word you wanted was "miscegenation."]

[Ethan, the word you wanted was "miscegenation."]

LOL...definitely...as you can see, I forgot where I was posting and used another format for italics too...and actually, I even misspelled the incorrect word! Note to self, coffee first, posting second...

On the substance of the post, I understand that your beliefs hold gay marriage to be one example of man putting himself in the place of God. Another example could be unbridled pursuit of pleasure. Another could be irreverence towards His Church. Another could be pursuit of riches or pride or gluttony or anger or sloth or lust or envy.

You can certainly decry all of these as sins - deadly sins, at that! - and bemoan the choices individuals make in their lives, and where it leads them.

The concern is when the government enshrines those beliefs in law. Religious tolerance was born out of the political necessity that centuries of sectarian violence bred, not out of some church's dogma. Political freedom flourished in spite of religious convictions, not because of them. America is great because of her citizens' freedom, not because of their religious obedience.

We can debate (and have debated!) whether the prohibition on gay marriage is wise policy, or if it's truly discrimination, or if this is the appropriate method for setting policy or not. But the argument, "my God disapproves of this behavior" - you'll forgive me if I find that argument to be excessively non-compelling.

Tell me it's against the public morals, and I can see the argument - I don't think that's dispositive by itself, but a community's understanding of what is right and what is wrong is definitely a factor in these discussions. But that it's an outrage against God? Ought outrage against God really be the legal standard we set? Is fear of God's wrath the best motivation for public policy in a secular state?

...and I guess more directly to your point, not Bisaal's - that gay marriage is trying to rework fundamental truths of human nature to what we want them to be, rather than to what they really are - I'd just have to ask how we define what they really are? If we look to nature, we see our closest biological relations (chimpanzee's and bonobo's) copulating freely in a bisexual Woodstock-style commune...if we look to scripture, we see prohibitions on a whole slew of behaviors that we judge not to be all that unhealthy or unnatural.

And if we look to history, we see radically altering definitions of family and sexual relations through time. Polygamy, old men with young girls, homosexuality - it's all there.

So how do we know what is and what is not against nature?

Hasty thoughts, then gotta get back to business...

"Religious tolerance was born out of the political necessity that centuries of sectarian violence bred... I think this is, historically speaking, BS. The so-called enlightenment attacked religion and drove it out of many spheres. And it then proceeded to fight over the same ideas, just giving them different names. (And with the level of violence increased a hundredfold.)

"So how do we know what is and what is not against nature?" We don't know. We can't know. Even religions have only partial answers. But for that very reason I think the idea that we should thoughtlessly experiment is just CRAZY! Even the atheist should be treading with the utmost caution and humility, and should be consulting with the religious just on the small chance that they might, after pondering these things for thousands of years, have learned something.

Marx started a new religion, (Gnosticism-To-The-Max you might call it) a hundred people million (at least) died, and now our philosophers sit (metaphoricaly) amid the rubble, and say, with buttery complacency, "Isn't it good that we no longer suffer from the sectarian violence of those horrid old superstitions."

"Religious tolerance was born out of the political necessity that centuries of sectarian violence bred...
I think this is, historically speaking, BS. The so-called enlightenment attacked religion and drove it out of many spheres. And it then proceeded to fight over the same ideas, just giving them different names. (And with the level of violence increased a hundredfold.)

I think you're right about that. I wasn't very happy with that paragraph, and there were a number of caveats I typed up, but I got soaked in examples and counter-examples, and figured I was better off leaving it as is, so the primary point could come through - that it isn't Arian or Trinitarian dogma that make the world a better place, it's not dietary prohibitions or ceremonial texts that increase human freedom, it's not sola scriptura or prima scriptura that bring long life and health to a society - it's government getting out of the way and letting individuals make their own choices for what they do, who they marry, what they believe, what they buy, and how much they'll pay for it.

And that's not entirely true, I know - for instance, even if religioun wasn't the primary source for our reverence for life, it's certainly the main justification and support for it today, and I think that's a huge part of America's greatness.

But I'd say 1) the fact that non-religious sources have caused even greater death and destruction does not argue that sectarian violence wasn't all that bad - just that it wasn't as well-armed; 2) our founding fathers were well aware of what religious authority in the hands of the state could do, and while they were far less scrupulous about separating government from religion than we try to be today, I think that instinct was, in fact, born largely from the centuries of European history of which they were very aware; 3) arguing that sectarian strife was bad does not in any way obligate me to argue that non-sectarian strife is good! I can be against both, and, in fact, I am!

I think what we've seen is that any state that requires adherence to certain beliefs (religious or otherwise) is doomed to failure - and bloody failure, at that.

And any state that defines certain limits on behavior, agreed to by the people (via their elected representatives), and then gets out of the way and lets the people live their lives - those states are successful and at peace (unless threatened externally).

Where do we draw the lines that limit certain behaviors? Well, that's where policy debates come in. But our first reaction to issues of human freedom ought to be, to my mind, to err on the side of liberty, not restriction. I think that's served us awfully well so far...

Good points.

However, the Massachusetts decision had nothing to do with liberty (though they are happy to use good people like yourself who believe in liberty.) It was an attack by one religion on another, and gays are just cannon fodder. It is noteworthy that it was instantly followed by an attack on the Church, forcing them to stop finding adoptive homes for children in Massachusetts (Children are cannon-fodder too.)

(You might find this article interesting, though I'm no big fan of WorldNetDaily)

I've said before that I disagree with this issue being decided in the courts...I want to win the argument, to convince folks that gay marriage should be not only permitted but encouraged. And I believe that's where we're heading - I suspect in another generation, we'll look back on this debate and shake our heads...

But this should be decided by the people, not by academics and lawyers convincing two or three judges.

Of course, I also think it's one of the more unimportant issues in the country today...let's beat back our generation's brutal totalitarian oppressors first, and tinker around the edges of the equal protection clause later, shall we?

And I think there's only one war. And that the Jihadis are pulled to attack us as much as pushed by their own internal Islamic conflicts. Pulled by the vacuum of the emptiness in our souls, and our anemic civilizational morale.

As a very practical example, the Iranian reolutionaries had no plans to hold our diplimats hostage for more than a few days. They were pulled towards what they did by the astonishing weakness of Carter's response. And Carter is a perfect example of a member of that "new religion," the same one that's expressing itself in the Mass. decision. And which you don't want to become cognizant of...

Seems to me weakness is perfectly sufficient to explain the dynamic of aggressor/victim. That weakness may exhibit itself in how a nation approaches foreign policy, or how a church approaches social issues, or how a city approaches crime and punishment - but that doesn't mean criminals are drawn to areas where the mayor isn't rooted in his faith in God...it means criminals are always there, and where we relax our vigilance, they'll blossom.

We fight criminals with police; we fight social ills with a combination of the free market, fighting crime, charity and some level of a safety net; and we fight foreign threats with a robust military and a strong economy, both of which can be brought to bear as needed.

Jihadi's attack us because they're sick, evil bastards - they grow worse because they've seen that violence works. And none of that has anything to do with our faith, or lack of faith - it has to do with our unwise policies and weak responses.

You may argue that a lack of religion erodes our ability to set wise policy, or to follow through in difficult times. But I'd point to Guiliani - he's a great example of a guy who ain't Mr. Old Time Religion, who's happily open to gay folks, etc., but who took a crime-infested New York City and turned it into what it's become.

Well fine, you might reply, but there's a faith and a strength and a spirit in Guiliani that made that possible. To which I'd obviously reply, great - then it's the faith of a Guiliani, of an enthroner of perversion, if you will, that is necessary and sufficient to run a city. Similarly, you can have all the faith in Christ Jesus you want in Jimmy Carter, and without strength and wise policy, it's utterly useless.

We need strong leaders, wise policy, and maximum freedom for individuals. If we have all three and lack the Fear of the Lord, we'll do fine. If we lack any of them we can Fear the Lord all we want, we ain't gettin' very far.

At least in my view...

The point I am making is if you believe in God then
how come you are not thinking of the dire possibility of the Wrath considering the state of your country.
For such a person any drastic action to avert Wrath is justifiable.
Perhaps the Islamists are taking this action to avert Wrath on the whole globe.
It could be that modernity always destroys faith and thus human life and to preserve humanity the modernity needs to be shocked.

"The idol we have turned to, the idol of the Self, is the most like the one true God, for it is made in his image. The idolized self is the most plausible and deceptive of all idol"

Hutchens at Mere Christainity

The point I am making is if you believe in God then how come you are not thinking of the dire possibility of the Wrath considering the state of your country.

...and if I don't believe in God, then ought I still fear his Wrath? And if so, then whose interpretation of His wrath-avoiding covenant ought I to follow? Whose understanding of God's law ought we to make manditory?

For such a person any drastic action to avert Wrath is justifiable. Perhaps the Islamists are taking this action to avert Wrath on the whole globe.

This, my friend, is precisely the problem. My intentions may be the best in the world - the problem is when I'm willing to make decisions for you. It's when I say, "my God teaches Bisaal ought not eat pork," or "my God teaches that Bisaal may not live with this person," or "my God teaches that infidels like Bisaal are destroying the world!"

You can believe in whatever you like - follow your God's teaching all day and all night. But no matter how much you fear your God's wrath, in America, you don't get to impose his covenant on others. It's that simple - and that beautiful.