There's a new Christian movie being released this weekend called "Facing the Giants" about a Christian football coach and his team.  It was made by a church in Albany, Georgia by an all-volunteer cast.  Due to the fact that it is the very definition of independent film, it is not opening wide, but if and when it comes to your area, I highly recommend that you all check it out.

Let's all support this to show that there is a market for good Christian product!  You can best believe Hollywood and Christians will be watching the performance of this movie to determine future projects.  Let them know we want better movies by attending this one.  Imagine what might happen if we turned this into a blockbuster, blowing films like "Little Miss Sunshine," the current independent sleeper hit, away!

In my journal, I named both Sean Astin and Kevin Costner as role models before, even though I know little about them in their private lives (and based on the little research I did, some of the little I do know about them is disquieting). I’ve liked some of the inspirational, fictional characters they’ve played, such as Samwise Gamgee in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and John Dunbar in Dances with Wolves. I’ve also liked some of their admirable characters based on real people, such as Rudy Ruettiger in Rudy or Jim Garrison in JFK, but the problem with naming them as role models is doubled since I don’t know much about the actors or the real life people their characters are based on. But the power of movies and television is that the characters can be “known” better than, and in fact, can sometimes wipe away some of the warts and ugliness that may detract from, the real person or people.

We can’t really know people all that well, whether they’re real people like Rudy Ruettiger or Jim Garrison, or the actors who play them like Sean Astin or Kevin Costner (and let's face it; not matter how great the character may be, the real people are either bleeding heart liberals, complete jerks, or most likely both).  Michelle Malkin’s latest column on this site is about Charlotte Church, someone she used to like, but who proved to be an idiot over time, right up there with Rosie O’Donnell. But movie characters, not being real, and relegated to a couple hours of celluloid, are more of a certainty. In fact, fictional movie characters are about the only “people” we can be certain about admiring! After researching it, I may discover I don’t much care for any of the real people – whose to say that in real life I might find all of them distasteful (especially if they live in Hollywood and hobnob with the likes of Whoopi Goldberg and Alec Baldwin). But I know I like some of these movie characters. Whether or not the real thing actually deserves my respect, the fictional characters based on them in these movies are certainly men to admire and hold up as role models in my humble opinion.

That extends to Matthew Perry’s portrayal of inner city school teacher Ron Clark in the made-for-TNT movie The Ron Clark Story.

I don’t know much about the real Ron Clark, only what I could glean from the movie and a few websites about him on the internet. If he’s like most teachers, he’s liberal and is bent on teaching unproven evolutionary theory and the proper use of condoms to our elementary school children. But that’s really just supposition. I don’t really know if he holds these views, I just assume he does based on what I know about teachers in general and teacher’s unions specifically, most notably the NEA.

The real man seems like an exceptional teacher, and deserves my accolades if I am to believe everything about him in this movie and on his websites. Likewise, I know almost next to nothing about actor Matthew Perry, the congenial actor who played the likable Chandler Bing on Friends for ten seasons. From what I’ve heard (on this website), his new show Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is already trying to push buttons and score points against the conservative Christian crowd. Yet his portrayal of teacher Ron Clark in this movie is absolutely motivating and stunning.

As for the real Ron Clark, he currently goes on speaking tours for educational conferences which draw hundreds of people and positive testimonials, and he’s working on opening an Academy in Atlanta for low-income families in which his students would be able to visit every single continent by the time they reached the 8^th grade. I’m not sure about the wisdom and the political and financial planning that goes into backing such an Academy, and what it all involves, or even the real educational significance for the kids, but at least on the surface it seems like an interesting and lofty idea (so long as they keep it out of the arena of the public school system).

The one thing I can say about this guy for sure is that, based solely on this movie and his websites, he is the exception to teaching and not the rule, and that he rises above the sea of dreck that constitutes the level of passion, commitment and teaching abilities of most teachers in the public school system, and reading the testimonials of people who experienced him live for his speaking tours, I’ll have to say I’m not the only one who feels this way about him.

After visiting some websites devoted to him, here are Ron Clark’s most successful achievements, outside of his ability to reach these students, of course, like difficult Shameika played by Hannah Hodson in the movie:

• He and his class were invited to the White House as honored guests on three occasions
• He was named Disney’s American Teacher of the Year in 2000
• He’s been interviewed by Katie Couric on The Today Show and by Oprah Winfrey on her show, and in the pages of O Magazine, became Oprah’s first “Phenomenal Man.”
• His first book, The Essential 55, which was seen in the movie as a set of rules to govern the class, was a best seller that sold over one million copies in over 25 countries.

I am fully aware that each of these achievements could be considered a detriment knowing what I know about the Clintons, Disney, Winfrey, Couric, the publishing world, and public education, but within that backwards realm, he can still be admired for rising above the sea of mediocrity within his chose profession, no matter what his politics are. And again, I’m admiring the fictional character here, not necessarily the real man, who I know almost nothing about.

In the end, why do I name at least the fictional Ron Clark as a roll model and someone to admire? I’ll let Matthew Perry explain it as he tells why he took the part (quoted from the TNT website devoted to the movie:  “I got emotional when I read the script. It’s a classic against-all-odds story. The drama comes from these kids who have all but given up on themselves. Watching the kids triumph is moving. That is why I’m here. I’m very proud of it.”

As well he should be.

These PBS House shows are fascinating! The lessons one can learn from the “experiment” are never less than intriguing, whether commenting on the human condition from centuries ago or from today. By taking people from modern times and having them “live in the past,” or as close an approximation to the past as possible, and filming it, commenting on it (the narrator this time is Randy Quaid) or having them comment on it, the experience is never less than stimulating, therefore entertaining.

Those who chose to participate this time included the Cooke family, the ones put in charge of an 1800’s Texas Ranch to turn a profit, and a group of guys who were to be the “cowboys,” mostly ranch hands and a few cooks, and a single girl to act as a house-girl or maid. The Cookes, and Mr. Cooke specifically, were given the task of making a profit on the ranch, which means organizing the cowboys, going on cattle drives, and delivering a herd to market in order to not just subsist as a working ranch, but thrive. For the point of this experiment, these people only had to survive this way for three months, but as the filmmakers point out many times during this eight episode run, real families, ranchers, and cowboys living back then didn’t have the luxury of driving back to a modern city to reenter life in the 21^st century like these people did. If their ranch didn’t thrive, they could (and sometimes did) die. Watching all of this unfold was absorbing, as is usually the case with the PBS House shows.

The Cooke family consisted of husband Bill, wife Lisa, and daughters Vienna, Lacey, and Hannah, and the “girl of all work” who lived with them, Maura Finkelstein.

Other than the gruff foreman Stanley Johnston who was kicked off the ranch after a few days or weeks, the other cowboys were new ranch foreman Robby Cabezuela, cook Ignacio (Nacho) Quiles, Shaun Terhune, who took over Nacho’s job as cook when Nacho was fired, the English Johnny Ferguson, Anders Heintz, Ian Roberts, Jared Ficklin, and newcomer Rob Wright, who was “hired” by Mr. Cooke to replace some of the cowboys lost when Johnston and Nacho left.

The dynamics of the Cooke family and their relationship with the cowboys was the drama that kept the tension going, and of course, things were made even more interesting with the arrival of native American Indians, a merchant stopping by with supplies to buy, and the final trip to drop off the cattle at a local “fort” to sell about 200 head. How the audience interprets what happened with this ranch depends on how they might read these people, but here’s what I saw:

Mr. Cooke was whipped, and would make the difficult decisions only when prodded by his wife. Without her, he couldn’t stand on his own two feet; the cowboys knew it, and so did I. The only ones who didn’t seem to know it were the Cookes, and that includes those three pretty but almost invisible daughters. Mrs. Cooke was the one who wore the pants in the family and it drove her crazy that, for this time period and the purposes of this “experiment,” women had little or no power whatsoever. The running of the ranch was supposed to be the man’s responsibility. The problems in this experiment were caused because Mr. Cooke was indecisive and rather incompetent (the experts couldn’t make heads or tales of his expense ledger in the end), and the forced recommendations of his wife, who only saw things her way, didn’t sit well with the cowboys. It caused animosity to develop between the Cookes and the cowboys with Mr. Cooke caught in the middle, and when push came to shove, Mr. Cooke, of course, did what his wife said. Bill Cooke tried to justify it by stating their marriage was a partnership and their decisions for running things on the ranch were part of a two person committee, but in reality, Mr. Cooke, at least on camera and in these particular circumstances, didn’t seem to have a mind of his own, and it was Mrs. Cooke who okayed or dismissed all business pertaining to the ranch.

Take the whole Nacho/Shaun/Maura problem. When Nacho left the camp for being a lousy, disgustingly dirty cook and making all the cowboys sick, somebody had to fill in, and that somebody was Shaun, who graciously took over the job, leaving the other guys to go on all the cattle round-ups and drives. Part of the “fun” of this for the “cowboys” who volunteered for this “experiment” was to saddle up and ride, which Shaun could no longer do since he was tied down to duties as cook (which, by the way, he handled much better than Nacho, who is a professional chef in the real world). With former Ranch Forman Stanley Johnston and Nacho fired, the cowboys were down by two men since Robby and Shaun had to take over their responsibilities. To help fill the gap, Mr. Cooke hired newcomer Rob Wright and even participated in some of the cattle drives himself (of which the other cowboys were not too keen). Then Maura started talking about helping with the drive, showing an interest in “becoming” one of the cowboys since they were so short staffed. Prodded by Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Cooke caved in, and ordered Robby to find a spot for Maura on the team. Robby and the other cowboys complied reluctantly, and emotions were riding high for everybody: Maura, Robby, the cowboys, Mr. and Mrs. Cooke, and particularly Shaun, who took this like a slap in the face. Signing on to become a cowboy, he was then relegated to become the cook, and now, instead of letting him rejoin the other cowboys, Mr. Cooke (led by Mrs. Cooke, of course), was now instead going to let Maura ride with the other guys, which the other guys resented. I got the feeling Mr. Cooke actually felt sorry for Shaun and understood why he was understandably upset, but do you think Mrs. Cooke felt the same? Well of course she didn't! In Mrs. Cooke’s opinion, Shaun had better buckle down and keep that spatula in hand so that Maura can fill that needed spot on the cattle drive. And, of course, with no real voice of his own, Mr. Cooke was relegated to supporting his wife’s decision, just like always.

Or take for example that Indian affair that centered on poor old Jared, and which led to animosity at the end and the entire project falling apart! The cowboys were given a salary, just like any cowboy was given back then for the same job, and Jared saved his up and bought his own horse from Mr. Cooke. Well into the filming of this show, the producers worked onto the show the modern equivalent of an Indian tribe, who met with the cowboys while they were on the trail, and then “graciously” offered to have Jared and stay the night with them while the other cowboys returned to the ranch with word that the Indians would visit soon. When the Indians showed up, they were treated to hospitality 19^th century Texas style. Believing the Indians to be amiable, Mr. Cooke played hardball with them when the Indians expressed interest in some of his cattle, and then discovered the Indians were actually, for all practical purposes, holding Jared and several or his own horses “hostage” and would return them for about 2 dozen head of cattle. Mr. Cooke agreed and got Jared and the horses back. When the show ended, however, Jared was told by Mr. Cooke that his horse, which he had bought from Mr. Cooke, was no longer his, because Mr. Cooke had to re-buy it back from the Indians. That didn’t sit well with Jared, nor the rest of the cowboys, and they all banded together in support of Jared and walked off the ranch with hurt feelings on both sides. In my humble opinion, however, the cowboys were more than justified! I would have walked off too!

Neither side wanted to get back together to discuss the success or failure of the ranch with the experts, but the experts came anyway, assessed the situation, and then sent letters to all participants, which the cowboys and the Cooke family read for the first time in front of the cameras from the security and comfort of their 21^st century lives. And the experts’ assessment? A failure! Oh, not a complete failure to be sure, but a failure none the less, for although the ranch turned a profit this time, without any remaining ranch hands for the supposed following year, the Cooke ranch would have little chance of surviving, especially under Bill and Lisa Cooke’s control. Despite having a garden, the assessors were disturbed by the fact that the family rarely used it for food or side profit, and even more disturbing was the massive fly problem in the kitchen due to the garbage and chicken carcasses Mrs. Cooke left too close to the kitchen door.

The cowboys were thrilled with the assessment, and the Cookes were offended, as one might expect, and it all helps one to realize how a person may not be able to see the forest for the trees, especially when they are smack dab in the middle of it. But success or failure, these PBS House shows are one of the best reality shows on television. Other than having many of the aspects of other reality shows, they are also eye-opening and educational, as well as cultural and historical. You would probably have no reason to show something like Survivor or American Idol in a classroom, but kids can learn a lot from these PBS House shows (though they would still need to be trimmed and edited for a few more risqué moments – I remember for Colonial House, for instance, how the Voorhees family skipped church to go skinny dipping, an act that would have gotten them banned from the community or even lynched in real Colonial times). That’s the appeal of these shows: The entertainment and the education, and unlike Survivor, you actually feel smarter and wiser for having watched them.

I was debating on what I should and should not share in here from my journal. As I said in my introduction from weeks ago, “Entering the Arena,” I explained how I was inexperienced in the art of blogging at all, and that this was my first, and perhaps last, one, and that I was doing it only to share some of my vast backlog of writings in my journal. In that very journal I make comments about many different things, keeping notes and then writing about them all at once at the end of the month, which I’ve been doing consistently for the past seven years at least. Each month, I write about personal news (I can go back through my journal and tell you what my family was doing every month for the last seven years), happenings at work, my walk with God, current happenings in the news that I write about under the title “Culture,” and my musings on all things pop culture, since I happen to be a big fan of movies and TV, though also writing about music and books. I’ve also, for the last five years, been citing a celebrity each month as a role model and explaining why, and this is because most celebrities, especially actors, just don’t deserve my admiration and respect. I’m following the example of Bill O’Reilly who in his first book wrote a little blip in the end for celebrities he felt were a step above the usual dreck, and I decided to do the same thing (not always successfully, mind you), and to write about people who actually might deserve my admiration for being more than just the usual shallow, selfish, Bush-bashing dunderheads.

I’m sharing these old journal entries for several reasons. Like a real writer, it offers me a chance to see my writing “published,” and possibly read, though I’m not holding my breath, and no matter what I write or share, it offers a unique voice and point of view. If you want to know what Ann Coulter and Mike Gallagher think, their columns are just a click away. This one’s mine. Fearfully, what I write may reveal my weird side. After all, who writes movie and TV reviews in a personal journal? But like River Phoenix explained to Wil Wheaton in Stand By Me when Wheaton’s character Gordy complains about being weird, “So what, everybody’s weird,” and he’s right. If nothing else, it helps me to understand the world a little bit better and is akin to simply thinking about it, only doing it on a computer keyboard at the same time. I’m of the school of thought that if you can talk, then you can write – in fact, you can write better since you have the opportunity to “clean it up.” Besides, some of these “trivial” reviews even find their way onto this website among the featured columnists! For instance, other than commenting on the Pope’s supposed faux pas, the war on terror, and the upcoming November elections, the columnists on this site have also managed to sneak in a few relevant reviews of pop culture that caught my eye, from MTV’s low-key anniversary amid their usual displays of sex and debauchery, Spike Lee’s shameless and inaccurate indictment of the government in his most recent mockumentary of the Katrina disaster, and Comedy Central’s disgustingly unfunny, vulgar, and racist roast of William Shatner to more noble entertainments like Oliver Stone’s surprisingly even handed and restrained World Trade Center and the wonderfully controversial Path to 9/11. Check out Mary Katherine Ham’s columns and you’ll even read about some film on the web made by a bunch of conspiracy lunatics who claim to have proof that the toppling of the World Trade Center and the death of nearly 3,000 Americans was perpetrated by our own government, led by an evil George W. Bush. (Don’t worry though; their evidence is the same kind of sketchy proof the evolutionists have been perpetrating on a sleeping public for over a century – or maybe you should worry. Remember, I said “sleeping” public, and if they were fooled before…)

The stuff I share in here will most likely be some of my old stuff from my journal, and I’m putting it out here in the hopes someone will read it and perhaps think a little differently or see my point of view, or even correct me when I’m wrong, but seriously, I’m not expecting that anyone will really read it! Who’s got the time to just sit and read other people’s blogs? I sure don’t. I’ve barely got time to write them or even copy and edit them from old journal entries! But I still think there’s some good stuff in my journals over the last seven years, and who knows what the future holds? (Hey, if the liberals have their way, we may all be praising Allah at gunpoint and kissing the Quran by this time next year). I still see this as an opportunity to share a bit of my writings and thoughts. I’m not as politically savvy as most other people on this website, but I still know what’s right and wrong, and I still have a brain in my head (unlike people who can’t even wrap their heads around the simple geometric math concept that a widescreen movie shows the whole picture while a full screen does not, despite those bars at the top and the bottom of the screen).  I'm a Christian first, a conservative second, and a republican third.

So my next article will be a review of a good television show I watched months ago on PBS called Texas Ranch House, and after that I may share a blip I wrote about The Book of Ruth from the Bible or about teacher Ron Clark and the movie made about him starring Matthew Perry. I doubt it will raise any eyebrows, and if anybody happens to stumble across it, which is unlikely, I hope they might tell me what they think (“Admiring a liberal teacher? What, are you crazy?”) It would be nice if I could get a little feedback, but I expect nothing, or very little. I’m beginning to suspect that blogs are almost the same as writing in a private journal that nobody ever reads. There’s little recognition in that, but perhaps some safety. You can’t step on anyone’s toes if they don’t know you even exist, or don’t care enough to read what you have to say.

The Book of Deuteronomy showed how Israel was offered a fresh start, a new chance to get their covenant with God off on the right foot. It was now time to enter the Promised Land, time to see if this new generation was any better than the old one. And so this book is a refresher of sorts as Moses tells this new generation the story of how they got here, and what they must do as they enter the Promised Land as God’s children. Moses gives a history lesson, then reviews the law and restates the terms of the covenant with God. A negative spin is put on this book when God doesn’t let Moses into the Promised Land for a sin he committed, and then God reveals to Moses things that will come to pass: that Israel will become content and forsake Him and begin worshipping other gods, and at that point, God will abandon them and let other nations destroy them and scatter them (which happens later with Babylon and Assyria).

Yet there is still a silver lining: A big portion of this book is devoted to the concepts of love (God’s love for us reflected in our true love for Him) and choice (people have the choice to follow God or not, then as now, and each choice would reap different consequences or rewards).

Teaching is also another aspect of this book that I latched onto. Watching an episode of Wife Swap, I realized that the teaching of God’s ways to our children can actually look like ritualistic indoctrination to outsiders. But to borrow an analogy from CS Lewis (and not doing it justice), we must offer a drowning man something to grab onto. We can’t just expect he “will find his own way.” Teaching our children the ways of God gives them a basis from which they can make an informed decision.

In this Wife Swap episode, a woman who loved horror movies and had a daughter with a rather sexual, personal website moved in with a Christian family for two weeks, and took the husband of that family to task for teaching his children (horror or horrors!) Christian morals! She thought it was just awful that the children weren’t allowed to “find their own way” in life, and were merely learning to become “Christian robots” from the instructions, discipline, and example of their parents. Meanwhile, the Christian woman had a difficult time with her new family for the two weeks of the swap, yet still managed to teach the wild girl with the sexual website a little bit about morality and making informed decisions. The horror movie freak’s way was to let her children choose whatever they wanted without really giving them the tools they needed to make the informed, responsible decisions, and that’s why her daughter didn’t think anything at all about her open nudity on her personal website… until the Christian woman caused her to rethink it, and she then removed those photos. Meanwhile, the horror freak did her best to try to corrupt the two Christian children by giving them opportunities to make less moral choices. She tried to split up the family meal time and separate them into different rooms as her own family was, giving each child a computer and TV of their own, with the ability to surf the web unsupervised, but it didn’t work. These kids had Christian morality ingrained, and the family continued to eat dinner and spend time together, and the boy even took her to task for calling him a robot, trying to explain to her that his choices were his own. Not that his choices truly are his own, but he needed that instruction in Christ to make the better choices, and he’s not worse off for it. Again, I like the way my Life Application Study Bible put it in their introduction to Deuteronomy: “God commanded the Israelites to teach their children his ways. They were to use ritual, instruction, and memorization to make sure their children understood God’s principles and passed them on to the next generation. Quality teaching for our children must be a priority. It is important to pass on God’s truth to future generations in our traditions. But God desires that his truth be in our hearts and minds and not merely in our traditions.” I couldn’t have said it better myself, and this was what the Christian boy was trying to convey to the horror freak who was his temporary mother for two weeks, but couldn’t quite get across. She asked him at one point, after he said he would train his own children in the same way he was trained, what he would do if one of his children rebelled, and he couldn’t really articulate a good answer for her. But I could: I would do whatever I could to reach that lost lamb, especially since it was my own flesh and blood, and if I couldn’t, I would weep for them. If they are not following the ways of God, they are following the ways of Satan, however casually or unaware… like this horror freak (who was actually better than some they’ve had on this show, on either the loose liberal side or the unstably judgmental far right).

What the three Bible books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy have taught me then is two things: 1. Life was very brutal, bloody, and barbaric back then, and 2. God gave them what they needed to become the people of God, then as now, and it was their choice to become whatever they became. Despite our two different approaches to life (and in many respects, I suppose we are as brutal and inhuman in our own ways these days), we are much the same as the old Israelites, and God offers us the same choice. As with the Christian children in that family on Wife Swap, I’m so glad I was given the tools (“indoctrination” or whatever you want to call it), to make the choice for God. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

“He looks like such a nice clean-cut man.”

My mom’s friend said something to that effect when John Mark Karr was hauled to the United States after admitting to the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Mom and I did not agree with her. He was creepy, disturbing, like ol' Norman Bates in Psycho. Oh sure, he looked buttoned down and clean cut with his polo shirts and short hair (so did Norman) – all the better to ply his true desires while disguised as a nice, upstanding citizen. Mom and I were not fooled. His mannerisms and his eyes told a different story, as if he wanted nothing more than to prance around in little girl panties while sipping the champagne our tax dollars bought him for the ride home.

The media ate is up, but the smarter ones were more cautious and held their tongues. In the end, the media were played for fools because, that’s right, this guy, as demented, twisted, and disturbing as he may be, did not kill JonBenet Ramsey. He either admitted to killing her out of some sick fantasy, or convinced himself that he really did kill her, even though he did not (though in either case, he’s mentally ill), or he made the whole thing up to avoid the authorities in Thailand for having a bad case of Michael Jackson-itis for girls. Reports have stated his fascination for girls like JonBenet were more a desire to “be one of them” than to have sexual relations with them. How gross! What a black place this guy must live in, deep in the pit of his soul!

And I’ll tell you something else. No matter who killed JonBenet, I know that dressing her up like a hooker and parading her around a stage is wrong. It’s wrong for the child (make that children!), it’s wrong for the community, and it’s wrong for all the creeps out there just loving the fact that a bunch of parents living vicariously through their kids and with fame on their minds are putting their children out there for them to take advantage of. Again, these seemingly clueless parents have no idea there is a war going on, and they’re only helping to put fuel on the fire, and using their kids to do it!

Last week, I wrote about having clarity of vision. All the people on the right who I admire so much have it. If I’m going to be the same, I need to have it as well. I suspect that I already do – I just need to remind myself from time to time, and know what my core beliefs are and why, especially if I am going to be of any use whatsoever in the national debate.

And as I concluded last month, the first elemental truth to determine is whether or not there is a God. I, being a Conservative Christian, believe that there is, of course. But why, and what are the ramifications? How does it shape my world view?

ELEMENTAL TRUTH #1: THERE IS A GOD

So how do we make this determination? Well, as any good scientist will tell you (and I’m talking about a good scientist here, not an evolutionary one), we need to examine the evidence. And what is the evidence? The evidence is everything that exists. It is every person who is alive, and every person who used to be alive and is now dead. It is every plant and animal that has ever existed on this earth and the traces of their existence that they left behind when they died. It is everything that everybody has ever created, from stone knives and bearskins in the distant past to the Bible, which Christians believe was created through God, and the Koran and the famous and not so famous paintings of the renaissance painters to modern architects and the Friday the 13^th films of Sean S. Cunningham. It is every microbe and atom under the microscope to every planet and nebula in the solar system, and the mysteries that lie beyond in the universe, and other universes, and even the alternate realities that quantum physicists speculate exist.

“Well, obviously, something had to break the window; something had to hit the stereo.”
                                 - Nicholas Guest, National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation

Whatever the something is, be it God, Clark W. Griswold, or something else entirely, there is always a reason and an explanation.

This evidence can be examined in two ways, with two assumptions. You can either explain all this evidence, the nature of existence, using one or the other of those two, differing assumptions: There is a God or there is not a God. Explaining it using the first assumption is quite easy: God created it all. From there it gets a little harder: How did He do it, and what does it all mean? Explaining it using the second assumption, that there is no God, is quite more involved and difficult. If God does not exist, how did all of this stuff get here? That’s why the evolution vs. creation debate is so monumental and at the core of what we believe. It is the fight of the ages. If God does not exist, then evolution is the way we explain how everything got here and why it exists. Is there anything other than evolution or God that can explain how we got here and what we’re supposed to be doing here? (Actually, the answer to this question might bring up some sticky beliefs of Eastern religions and New Age thought which is a debate for another time. For now, I want to keep things a little simpler, in the realm of whether or not there is a god. Besides, even eastern religions and New Age spiritualists believe in something beyond the physical realm – in fact, they don’t believe in the physical realm so much as in the spiritual almost exclusively - so in a way, at least as far as this debate is concerned, they should be on our side.)

“And why is the carpet all wet Todd?”
“I don’t know, Margot!”
               - Julia Louis-Dreyfuss and Nicholas Guest, National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation

I’m not going to get into the whole evolution/creation debate here. For one thing, I wouldn’t do it justice in a little essay. Thousands of lengthy books have been written on this subject over the ages examining this debate from both sides. Suffice to say that there is a debate, and contrary to the lies and slander of the liberal left, there are intelligent people and arguments on both sides of this issue. Those who believe in creationism are not just a “bunch of indoctrinated idjuts.” My whole point is that if there are learned people like Hank Hanegraaff, Jonathan Sarfati, and Ann Coulter, as well as hundreds or thousands of others in the scientific community who either come out to bat for creationism and design theory or simply have viable and reasonable doubts about the theory of evolution, then to silence intelligent critics like this through political means and teach only the theory of evolution to our children as if there was no debate is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG (and quite evil, I might add). Because let’s face it, there are serious doubts surrounding the theory of evolution, and just because Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public don’t seriously think about it and are easily swayed by the liberal left (who have their own agenda, oh yes they do, thank you), it doesn’t mean that those doubts don’t exist. The scientists should have egg on their faces after such horrid travesties as Nebraska Man, Lucy, and recapitulation, to name just a few. The fact that they are not embarrassed by these things, especially since they still teach them as truth, shows just how much influence they have on this weak minded, unthinking populous; and with the venomous liberals in their corner, it almost seems as if they can’t loose.

But God exists, and He is a God of wonders, the God of all creation, and don’t think He can’t handle these guys. It would just be nice if the sleeping populous would wake up and see nature for what it is, and join the battle, or at the very least, realize that there is a battle going on, and that it is not just one-sided, with all the intelligent people and scientists on the left and all the idiots on the right.

It can all get to be so convoluted when it comes at you from dozens – no, hundreds – no, thousands – of places and sources. Everybody has an opinion.

I’ve been alive for over 42 years now. I’ve seen a lot of Church sermons; I’ve met a lot of people and read a lot of books. I have a world view, just like everybody else, and it’s grounded in what I believe.

But beliefs are all so varied. I wonder sometimes if this is really a good thing. But no matter what I believe, I know I need to come to a clearer understanding of what I believe, and what I know, and why. The world is suffering under the affliction of sin; of course, it always was, yet it seems to be getting worse. I don’t always have the answers, and the world is full of people who seem to think that they do. Sometimes history shows them to make the right choices, such as Ronald Regan holding out against the Soviets when all the liberal Democrats were screaming for him to “negotiate peace” and most of the people in the world of entertainment despised him or portrayed him as a doddering old fool. Yet he was right. He had clarity of vision, even among all these varying points of view. He had focus, even if it went against the popular opinion of the day. He didn’t care, because he knew what he had to do. He had principles and morals of his own, and it didn’t necessarily square with the left, who, like the rest of us over on the right, claim to want peace (regardless of the left’s faulty perception that the right is just a bunch of war mongers). The problem is that the left believes the way to obtain peace is to “negotiate” with any supposed adversary, even if they are lying, backstabbing terrorists who will come to the negotiation table with smiles and proposals but all the while have nothing but war and murder on their minds.

Sometimes history shows people making the wrong choices, such as Neville Chamberlain “negotiating peace” with Hitler, which didn’t accomplish a damned thing except to make things worse.

So in this world of vast information, it has become a necessity to know what we believe and why. I guess the most important thing to know is whether or not there is a God. That right there will cause a person to have a completely different world view, but even after determining whether or not there is a God, one must then act on it. I know a guy who claims to be a Christian, and to believe in God, but he still doesn’t seem to “get it.” He may think he’s a Christian, but he’s not. A Christian needs to have a relationship with Jesus, and allow Jesus to take over the reigns of his life. I’m not a perfect Christian (who is?), and I need to allow Jesus more control over my own life, but from my vantage point of at least trying to walk with God, I can see the position my acquaintance is in, and let me tell you, there are a lot - and I mean a lot - of people in his position.

That’s why I need to explore this issue of what I believe, what I know, and what is real and true versus what is fantasy and false, especially when we have people on the left with the view that religion (particularly Christianity) is, as Edie Brickell put it in song, “a lie in the fog.” Is my religion the ultimate truth, or “a lie in the fog”?

I won’t answer all the questions in a brief bit of rambling musings; in fact, they won’t be answered in many such commentaries. I’m not doing this to prove God’s existence to the world, for no one has been able to do that; you either believe or you don’t, but even if God came back down here and everybody saw him with their own eyes, many would doubt what they saw, or acknowledge him and then continue to live without him in their lives, like my “Christian” friend does who is fooling himself. As much as I might want to be Quixotic and change the world, in reality the best I can really hope for is to come to a better understanding of myself on a personal level. The questions, instead of “Does God exist, and can I prove it?” will be, “Do I believe God exists and is there proof enough for me?” And if perchance I can answer the first two questions while exploring the latter two, so much the better, right?

Until then, here are a few bold statements I won’t back up right now, but that I can work on over the months or years as I add to this list of what I believe or know:

• There is a God.
• Fetuses are human, or human in the making, and killing them is murder. Choice takes a back seat where these human lives are concerned.
• Evil really exists, and so does Satan.
• Money and power corrupts everything it touches, and even those whose intentions are honorable and good, and intend to use money and power for good can, and usually do, succumb to it (think of the ring from The Lord of the Rings)
• The liberal view is usually wrong, and the conservative view is usually right. We cannot just accept all people and all ways. There should be some taboos.

These are just a few beliefs I know in the marrow of my bones to be true, and I’ll discuss why in future entries. A few others I have a bit of a struggle with, and need to arrive at a better clarity, such as whether or not people are always to blame for their actions. Believing in God, one would think I believe that people are always responsible for their actions, but then, this is a (God-created) cause and effect world – causes produce effects – and one can see how certain causes produce certain effects, working even into the world of the human mind and the choices we make. It makes coming to a crystal-clear conclusion difficult (but not impossible).

So starting next month, like that old Steve Martin routine, I begin a look at What I Believe, and unlike Steve Martin, hopefully mine will be more elemental and definitive, and less comical. At least we can hope!

Except for Jesus, who we, as Christians, see (or should see) as a part of the Triune Godhead, and therefore part of God and equal to God the Father, everybody else is imperfect, including Abraham. That’s actually a good message for the rest of us. It means God can still love us and use us, even though we are not perfect – and let’s be truthful here, not a one of us is anywhere close to being perfect.

Abraham was described as faithful to God. He embarked with his family on a journey to parts unknown simply because he trusted that God would provide for him (for a great and insightful documentary of his journey’s, check out Walking the Bible). He trusted God so much that when God told him to kill his son Isaac, the one who was to carry on God’s promise that Abraham would have more descendents than there are grains of sand on the seashore, and through whom all nations would be blessed, he didn’t hesitate, and was poised with the knife, ready to strike until an angel called out to him to stop.

Yet this same man who is described as faithful to God, which God credited to him as righteousness, displaying actions on several occasions that proved that faithfulness, was on other occasions not quite so faithful. When God first told him he would have a son in his old age, Abraham (at that early time called Abram) didn’t believe him. When Sarah, his wife, gave him her maidservant Hagar, and she gave him a son named Ishmael, Abraham thought Ishmael would be the fulfillment of all of God’s promises. But he wasn’t. After God made his promise, Abraham then took matters into his own hands, and only helped to make things worse, for a jealous rivalry then developed between Sarah and Hagar, and she made Abraham banish both Hagar and Ishmael. Isaac was the true inheritor of God’s promises to Abraham.

The moral of this story about Abraham’s initial stumble is twofold: First, he screwed up, causing a problem in his own family, but showing us that when we likewise make a mess of things, God still loves us and forgives us, just like he did with Abraham, and second, as much as God loved him and thought of him as special, eventually having the honor of becoming the father of the entire Hebrew nation, his screw ups still caused problems in his life, for which he had to pay the consequences. God may love us, but we also will still have to reap the consequences of our choices and actions. If Abraham had to, so will we. It’s part of the entire “deal” as Christians.

Other than Jesus, there have never been any perfect people who have ever walked the earth, yet there are people who try to be better than they were, and they are the ones to look up to. Of all the political pundits on Townhall.com who I see as admirable and worthy of being role models, I know that not a one of them is perfect, and like Mel Gibson, I’m sure they all have their crosses to bear, even if I can’t currently see them and don’t know what they are. I know this because we all have our crosses to bear. Still, unless they are nothing but wolves in sheep’s clothing, they all have their admirable qualities, and I generally like the way they think and see the world. Even if some of them are nothing but hypocrites and wolves in sheep’s clothing (and this is highly unlikely given the nature of their beliefs), and I am being totally snowed by them, there is still nothing wrong with admiring only the qualities they at least pretend to possess. I mean, I can admire individual qualities even in a guy like Tim Robbins, who is nowhere near to being the type of guy I want to emulate and be like, particularly his far left political views and thoughts on compassionate conservatives, yet his Andy Dufresne from The Shawshank Redemption is still one of my personal all-time favorite inspirational movie characters, and the Robbins directed Dead Man Walking, despite it’s liberal message and cast, was, in my opinion, an absolutely great and thought provoking piece of cinema (and nowhere near as vomitous or as liberally heavy-handed as Mystic River). As long as we admire these people for all the right reasons, then even when they mess up, like Gibson just did, we still don’t have to have egg on our faces. I guess you could say I emulate who they present themselves as than as necessarily who they really are (after all, how well can we really know anybody?), and in that respect, I stand behind any roll model I’ve ever mentioned in this journal, or ever will mention. I’m wise enough to know that the real ideal of the man is so often better than the real deal, and often less disappointing. It’s true of anybody I might admire - it’s true of me, and it’s true of you too, whoever you may be. And it’s true of Abraham.

The real neat thing we can learn from Abraham is that God loves us all so much that he sacrificed his only Son to save us, so that we might make the choice and the commitment to believe and therefore live with him in paradise for eternity – us, we “rotten tomatoes” and sinning humans, imperfect and full of faults, every single one of us. Yet he loved Abraham, and even though he made mistakes, Abraham followed God and trusted in him, in his limited human way. God understood this, and understands it with us as well, and all he asks is that we try to follow his path and his ways, and I mean really try.

I stumble, and I fall, like everybody does, but I’m still on the road, and I’m committed to remaining on this road. I guess that’s why I’m squarely in the conservative camp. Like me, for the most part, they are on this road as well, and just as committed to remaining on this road (and while I’m at it, I’ll take it even one step further by stating that what I just said about conservatives goes for not only conservative Christians, but the conservative Jews out there as well, like Jeff Jacoby, Michael Medved, and Ben Shapiro, all men I admire). When they mess up, like Gibson did, and like Abraham did, they must pay the consequences, yet they remain on this road, ready and willing to do whatever it takes to make amends and remain true men of God.

Now that’s admirable.

     Well, here it is, my first posting to Townhall.com - or to any website, really.  I'm not what I would call extremely computer savvy, and I've never really blogged before.  I had some friends at work talk me into setting up a MySpace.com account, but I've not used it at all really.  Seeing some of the stuff that goes on there, it looks like little more than a meat market (and dangerous for children).
    The reason for finally deciding to throw my two cents in is because I do it anyway in my journal.  Why not throw it in here and see if anybody else responds.  I already think like those on the Christian Conservative right do, and it comes through in my writing.
    I write in a monthly journal, talking about what's going on in my life and at my job, but also commenting on the things happening in the news or at Church, as well as Pop Culture.  I started a journal 15 years ago, and about 8 years ago, I began writing it in a "monthly" style, meaning I keep notes throughout the month and then write in my journal at the end of the month.  So over the last eight years at least, that means I've written about 100 essays or commentaries on recent events in the news (including Clinton's transgressions, the Elian Gonzales story, the massacre at Columbine, the Jon Bonet Ramsey murder, September 11, and the current war in Iraq and Southern Lebanon).  Not that I have the most intelligent things to say about them, but my thoughts on them fall right in line with the right.
    That means I've also written about 100 essays about my faith, Christianity, other religions, and the war the liberal left is waging in our schools and government to keep anything about God out of the hands of the public and the schoolchildren, but to make sure they all know about Evolution and sex.
    I don't expect my blogs to be the final words on any subject (far from it), but see them as just another perspective to think about.  I'm not sure if I'll just talk about current events, for this seems like an awesome opportunity to share some of the mountain of Conservative Christian thoughts I've already written that nobody has ever seen, so I may share some of that.
    Like life, I see this as an adventure.  Let it begin.