IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
Re: Quin Hillyer's Supreme
Dream:
"... is a battle Bush, and conservatives, can win."
What? Who?
Quin, you gotta get outside the Beltway. There aren't three conservatives in the country that would ever again stand with George W. Bush. Bush has betrayed those who elected him too often. A good economy doesn't make up for his pansy-ass war plan or his comprehensive plan to destroy the GOP and America.
I would personally stand with the Democrats if they wanted to
impeach Bush (for anything) -- but why should they? He's given them
everything they could possible hope for. He's even made the Carter
and Clinton presidencies look respectable.
-- Jack Hughes
Chicago, Illinois
Mr. Hillyer, great idea. Alice Batchelder would be a wonderful nominee. But the big question is really more about President Bush. Would he be able to articulate the reasons she is such a good choice?
Plus, you must remember the President doesn't much like
conservatives right now. He views us as a bunch of loud,
knuckle-dragging troglodytes.
-- Judy Beumler
Louisville, Kentucky
Quin Hillyer replies:
In response to Ms. Beumler, the good news is that a real troglodyte
wouldn't be able to spell "troglodyte," so it's obvious that if
that's the way Bush sees people like the good Ms. Beumler, he's
dead wrong! I would note, however, that in the past I myself have
come to the defense
of cave dwellers. Seriously, I do think it is absurd that the
president and his allies continue to resort to name-calling against
the people who have supported him for so long on so many other
issues."
HOW DO WE KNOW?
Re: Lisa Fabrizio's History's
Greatest Liar:
Without substantive comment on the content, I wish to say that this may be the only forum in this country where and article like this one could be found. There are articles aplenty in other publications, but usually dedicated to secularism or "proving" why Christians are idiots.
This is a view of a book written by a religious scholar with an
abiding belief and faith in Christ with no other axe to grind. I
commend Ms. Fabrizio's courage for writing it and the
Spectator's for printing it.
-- Jay W. Molyneaux
Denver, North Carolina
Like most who feel compelled to look on the Bible as either
completely accurate historical document or meaningless fiction,
Lisa Fabrizio backs herself and the Bible into a corner. Despite
the fact that the oldest of the synoptic gospels, Mark, was written
at least a generation after the death of Jesus and the stories of
Jesus relied on oral tradition, she leaves no room for the
possibility that the later loosely pieced together writings by
multiple authors which have undergone countless transcriptions,
interpretations and translations could be anything other than
precise reporting of historical events of the life of the son of
God. After reading the New Testament, the only conclusion one can
come to is that Jesus was a moral philosopher and to believe in his
past existence does not take a great leap of faith. To assume that
the only conclusion a thinking person could come to as Ms. Fabrizio
appears to, either that he was God or a pathologic liar, is
myopic.
-- John Sorboro
Lisa Fabrizio replies:
Given the constrictions of space, let me say this: the gist of Pope
Benedict's book -- indeed, of Christian belief for some 2,000 years
-- is precisely that, to understand who Jesus was, one cannot only
read the New Testament; one must look for his coming predicted in
the Old as well. And it is not his "past existence" which is at
issue, but his present and eternal one.
As far as his "moral" philosophy, the pope writes: "Unless there had been something extraordinary in what happened, unless the person and the words of Jesus radically surpassed the hopes and expectations of the time, there is no way to explain why he was crucified or why he made such an impact." Excluding some early Gnostics, not many dispute that Jesus was crucified, not only for political reasons, but because he claimed to be God, a crime punishable by death under Jewish law.
And as regards my myopia in stating that Jesus was either who he constantly claimed to be, or a prolific and/or pathological (as in related or resulting from disease) liar, this is indeed a tough statement, but nonetheless a true one. It may be myopic to believe him, but billions have and will continue to do so.
FEELING THE HEAT-
Re: G. Tracy Mehan, III's An Industry
of Mutual Degradation: