An Open Letter to Mary Grabar

I just posted my new essay "Where's The Fence?" at the Island. Take a look when you get the chance.

As to this essay, I like it and you make a really good case.

Of course, a basic tenet of Christianity is that we have to put up with doubters and castigatotr; it goes with the turf.

But if it were easy, everyone would do it, and it would have no value.

We'll get our reward in the next life; boy, is the other side gonna be sorry!

It certainly seems to me that there are those who search for 'mysteries' in the Bible the way others find 'penumbras' in the Constitution. In other words, it doesn't mean what it says, it means what I want it to say.

Seems to me that it is in no way insignificant that the occasion of Lucifer's fall was due to the sin of pride, and it seems to me that there is an old saw about the first consequence of pride, and somehow I don't think it was enlightenment.

Perhaps this is an apt aphorism for certain segments who like to view themselves as above the common folk: better to be the Lord of Heck than merely an angel in Heaven.

I just get so fed up as a Christian with being under attack all the time. I knew when I put Jesus on and decided to walk the narrow path that I was going to suffer slings and arrows; it's just no fun at all when it is other supposed Christians taking the pot shots. And what prompted me to write this was that Pious Mary Grabar has done this before, and she has made the insinuation before that Christians read nothing other than the Bible and that makes them somehow deficient. I say that if all a person reads is the Bible, they are getting everything that Mary claims we are missing out on; even unbelievers who do not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired regard it as a classic of literature. There is everything you want in a secular classic contained in one volume; you have stories of great heroism and sacrifice (Sampson, young David), spy stories and military battles, love triangles and intrigue, love stories, and stories of overcoming great odds...and that just covers a portion of the Old Testament!

And people who read the "Chicken Soup" books and the like don't bother me. They live hard enough lives as it is, they don't need to read about it either. If they want to read something that inspires them, or helps them through tough times then let them do it. They aren't hurting anyone, and if they do get into some theological debate with an atheist, I don't really think they are going to fall back on Dante or Milton to demonstrate their faith.

I used to feel bad when people would ask me if I were "saved". I have never liked that expression because it made me feel as if I were a pariah(sp?). However, now that I am a mature adult(ahem)I just choose to say that I believe in God and it is a personal thing. I let the naysayers and those who feel left out of the club fend for themselves. I tend to think that no matter what they say, at some point in life, they turn to God whether they mean to or not...some will finally see the light and others continue to question. It would suck to be them! Happy Fourth!!

I understand why people feel uncomfortable being asked that question, because for a long time I felt that way. Before I actually accepted Christ as Lord, when people would say that to me, I would feel funny, like I was lacking something...but I also felt a longing to have what they seemed to have, as well. Later, as I statred to learn things I learned that the discomfort that I felt was coming from the fact that I knew deep down that I needed Christ, but I was afraid to make that commitment. My spirit was reacting to the tug of the Holy Spirit to accept the free gift of salvation. Once I did that, the feeling of "unworthiness" I felt around those who were saved was gone and I became truly free.

But I have to disagree on one point: some people never turn to God and make a committment to Him, they run from Him, trying in vain to slake their spiritual thirst with everything the world offers, but never being sated. Some may say they turn to God in the hard times, but they quickly forget about Him when things get better. Thankfully He never forgets about us!

Hey,
I am sure you heard of the Gathering of Eagles...We have a lady who has set up a day for us Patriotic People!! In Raleigh tomorrow at Moore Square...Operation AMerica Rising...
http://www.operationamericarisingnc.com
11-5!!!

Thanks for the invite, but I can't get away for the day. But have a great time, and I'll be with you in spirit!

to this column for your interest, should you not have already read it.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/07/06/the_democratic_partys_stealth_war_on_black_americans?page=full&comments=true

I left a comment there that you may want to see!

in that column, the comment section got a lot longer too, I see.

In particular, I found the comments by Ayana, the self-identified liberal black woman, interesting, and I noticed you mentioned her briefly in your reply. What I found interesting was how, in her first comment, she told Top Gun that the reason why Democrats continue to walk away with the black vote was due to Republican attitudes and stereotypes towards blacks. Especially because in her numerous follow-up posts I found that the same thing seemed to be true of her as well, with respect to both blacks and whites.

I remember reading somewhere (maybe it was from you) a comment that went something along the lines of how these social programs meant for blacks (or at least that they seem to be disproportionately dependent upon) were the products of well-to-do white liberal women as a means to alleviate any guilt they felt on the matter.

In fact, the positions Ayana articulated reminded me of those of well-to-do white liberal women, as did what she shared of her background. I think of the epithets that were hurled at Condi, Aunt Jemimah in particular (which I take it is the female equivalent of Uncle Tom), and wonder if this might be an example where this really applies

I find it especially ironic given that I also noted, although I didn't see anyone point it out, that she took it upon herself to state that she spoke for blacks and the black community. I compare that to you, and the caveats you have made that your observations are your own and not necessarily reflective of the broader black community.

And liberals wonder why conservatives think they're so full of themselves. I also hope that it isn't true in her case, 'cause that would mean that the black community thinks like well-to-do liberal white women, yeech.

I would also note that it seems to me an almost inherently racist generalization to assume that there is a black community that is this, does that or thinks that. I mean when was the last time you heard people talk about how the 'white community' has this stance on issue, or even used a term such as the 'white community'? Why is it only (some) minorities that have communities, and community representatives à la Jesse and Al? Could you imagine the media deciding that someone was 'the spokesman' for the white community?

It wasn't me that made the statement about white liberal women, but I agree with it!

I think that blacks still speak of the "black community", as I do, not because of a need to be separate but because we have always felt that way. It's not so much that we feel like strangers in a strange land, but that we feel we have never quite fit in totally with the 'mainstream'. And there are certain problems that, while not limited to blacks, are seemingly more prevalent among us so we see ourselves as a community having to deal with those situations. Take gangs for instance; gangs are not unique to blacks in this country, but they have taken a terrible toll on our youth and neighborhoods in some areas. So the 'black community' feels that we, as a group, need to get a handle on this problem for ourselves.

But even at that, I would never presume to speak for anyone but myself. I have a brother that I talk to about a lot of this stuff, and even we don't totally agree on everything, nor does my wife agree with me on everything. If I cannot speak for my brother and my wife, how can I--or anyone else--pretend to speak for such a large, diverse group of people?

for example, it would seem to me that a lot of that has to do with fatherlessness. Another group that seems to have more than its fair share is hispanics. Would you happen to know anything about the legitimacy rate of Hispanics, I think that it is also low but I'm not entirely sure.

You know, it would be kind of ironic if this liberal white woman guilt thing being behind social programs were true, because if it were given its effects on the black (and possibly Hispanic and more) communities, they would have lots to feel guilty about. I'd also note that since liberal women are feminists, in the pejorative sense, it's interesting how the ill effects of these policies are not unrelated to the war on men, and fatherhood in particular.

Gang activity is in many ways caused by the breakdown of the family unit. It seems that for a lot of kids, the gang gives them a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves, of being loved that was once the province of the family. Now, with fractured families so prevalent something else has to fill that void in the lives of children, and the gang is there with open arms offering the love and acceptance that was once found only in the home.

As for the whole situation of feminism diving liberal social policy, I can see it now, but not so much then. It seems that at the time both the Great Society programs and the feminist movement were getting started up around the same time, so I don't think feminism was so entrenched at the time as to shape social policy. I think that maybe LBJ had some guilt over the way Blacs had been treated in this country up until that time, and that he was making a cold political calculation. He was trying to kill 2 birds with 1 stone: Do something to try to ameliorate the problems Blacks were facing, and to shore up his support among the progressive faction of his Party.

But there can be no doubt that his policies have pushed along the dreams of the man-hating feminists out there. Whether he meant it to be or not, LBJ created a perfect weapon to assault the family structure.