It’s been gratifying to witness the liberal punditocracy’s sudden and spectacular embrace of freedom of religion sparked by the plan to build an Islamic mosque near the “Ground Zero” site of the 9/11 attacks.

Historically, their primary use for the First Amendment was to cite the Freedom of Speech clause when defending pornographers or flag burners; or to use the establishment clause and the mythological “separation of church and state” mandate as a billy club for driving Christians and their views from the public square.

Suddenly, progressives are zealots for and champions of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion. Apparently, people of faith ought to be able to build a house of worship pretty much anywhere they jolly well please, no matter what the neighbors think about it.

Here’s the thing about that.  For the last 15 years or so, growing Christian churches all over America have consistently been running into brick walls of opposition when attempting to build new sanctuaries. Cities have thrown up zoning roadblocks, neighborhood groups have pitched fits, and city councils have fought to keep land on the tax rolls.  See here, here, here, and here for example.

Can someone please point me to an instance of any of the lefty pundits and pols that are now sputtering and thundering in high dudgeon about how opposition to the ground zero mosque represents an attack on religious freedom ever uttering a word of alarm about the tens of thousands of instances of churches being thwarted in their plans?

Just one?

You’ll search in vain. But better late than never. I’ll look forward to the support of Maureen Dowd, Keith Olbermann, Peter Beinart and their friends the next time the religious freedoms of a group of evangelical Christians is being impinged by local sensibilities or politics.

As usual, Michael Ramirez puts a 1,000 word essay in single picture:

This is what I’m saying.

I’m referring to growing opposition to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi war on the job creating class. Finally, after being a kid in the late 60s; a pro-Reagan square in the 80s; and a  supporter of many aspects of the global war on terror since 9/11; I finally get to be a peace-nik. “Woo-hoo! Peace now!”

I’m calling for an end to the liberal war on job-creators, a.k.a. business owners. “Hey, hey, ho ho. The health care mandate’s got to go!”

I pointed out in a recent post that entrepreneurs and small business owners are under siege from Washington.

The socialist revolutionaries, the Utopians, the Deweyist social engineers at the elite universities, and the bi-coastal beautiful people of the entertainment industrial complex all have something in common–a robust disdain for the kind of people who start and grow businesses. They are “money-grubbing shop keepers” and “greedy little merchants.”

Hollywood reflexively portrays anyone who runs a business large enough to employ other people as abusive. callous exploiters of humanity. The last decent human being to own a business on television was Arnold, the malt shop owner on Happy Days.

In the last few days there have been other online voices joining this anti-war movement. For example:

A few days ago, the Daily Caller ran a piece by Congressman Joe Pitts headlined–“Burying Small Businesses in Paperwork” Here’s a excerpt:

Every year millions of Americans risk their savings and work hard to start a small business . . . Small businesses all over America have just been told that they will have to pay billions more in taxes to foot the bill for Obamacare.  That’s money that might otherwise go to job creation.  That’s just one reason why America isn’t creating more jobs.

Over at Hot Air, “Doctor Zero” writes:

There’s nothing terribly mysterious about our high unemployment rate.  The primary engine of job creation in the United States is small business, which is generally held to produce about 70% of new jobs. . .

If rising labor costs lead to unemployment, then a helping of pork-fried “stimulus” should make businesses hire people, right?  Of course not.  Employment is a long-term relationship.  Businesses, especially small ones, hire people to meet future needs, not to collect one-time subsidies.  Thin curtains woven from taxpayer dollars cannot hide the predatory government currently in power… or the uncertain future of command economics, driven by irrational ideology, it offers.

With politically connected unions and mismanaged blue states teetering on the edge of collapse, they can anticipate even greater transfers of money from private to public sectors… which will mean even greater burdens for what remains of private industry.  Every small business owner knows that his personal income turns him into a target for this Administration and Congress.  Artillery is already incoming from the expiring Bush tax cuts.  Why take risks, when the rewards will simply be confiscated by a ravenous government?

I recommend reading the whole thing.

All I am saying is give peace a chance. I must go now. I have to organize a sit in. Power to the people!

After spending a few days with my folks in Oklahoma, I had a good 12 hours at home (seven of which I spent sleeping) before flying out to Santa Fe for four days of work on a new project.

It’s work. But it’s very pleasant work. I’m staying in a guest house on a mountainside overlooking the city of Santa Fe. I’m at about 7600 ft. elevation which means the nights are cool and the days are pleasantly warm. I’m writing while watching hummingbirds zip and buzz between the coral-colored blooms to my left and the lavender ones on my right.

As I said, it is pleasant work, marred only the fact the Mrs. Blather is not here with me to enjoy it and, having been on the road for most of a week, I’m missing her sorely.

A few random items:

• A couple of months ago I posted about the Obama cabinet’s glaring lack of private sector, a.k.a., real world experience. Yesterday, Investor’s Business Daily picks up the theme with “The Cabinet from Another World.”
• Here are “The 10 States with the Worst Roads and Bridges” so you’ll know when to pray extra hard while driving.
• In keeping with the New Mexico theme, here’s a a poignant Depression-era photo of a girl in Bosque, New Mexico.
• View the stunning full-size image here.

Homeward bound tomorrow.

I rambled back up U.S. 75/69 today to check in on my folks. Church with them tomorrow. A Dr. appointment for dad on Monday. Then home in time to catch a plane to Santa Fe Tuesday morning for a meeting.

I’ll report in sporadically. In the meantime, check out Ed Driscoll’s thoughtful piece on the decline of David Letterman. I’m old enough to remember when Letterman was funny. That was before he made himself the official attack clown of the Democratic party.

(via BoingBoing)

The folks at Maximedia have created some awesome fake ads for companies like YouTube and Skype in the classic “retro-future” style I love so much. Check the others out here.

Today if your sole sources of news are traditional, “mainstream” outlets like the big television networks (ABC, NBC, CBS), big newspapers (NYT, WaPo, LA Times) or smaller papers dependent on wire services like AP and Reuters (almost all of them) you are almost certainly simultaneously uninformed and misinformed.

“Uninformed” because there are important news stories these dinosaurs refuse to touch while their team is running Congress and the White House because they don’t fit the preferred narrative. Stories like Climate-gate, the Black Panther voter intimidation scandal, the numerous ACORN scandals and numerous others embarrassments for the Obama-Reid-Pelosi juggernaut were simply ignored until it was no longer possible to do so.

Last September readers whose sole source of news is the New York Times must have been utterly bewildered to learn of the resignation of Mr. Obama’s special green jobs “czar” Van Jones. Controversy about Jones past statements and associations had been roiling for weeks, but NYT readers had heard absolutely nothing of it.

“Misinformed” because much of what these entities do report is twisted or just plain wrong. Often outrageously so. Today’s case in point . . .

Numerous news cites are repeating, as fact, an assertion by CBS News that Arizona Republican Senator John Kyl is proposing that we repeal the 14th Amendment. Given that the 14th Amendment was a milestone post-slavery civil rights remedy drafted in the aftermath of the Civil War, it’s an incendiary accusation.

It’s also false.

Specifically, a reporter named Jimmy So at CBS’s “Face the Nation” sub-site declared that Sen. Kyl “supports repeal of the 14th Amendment.” In the last few minutes, the copy has been revised and the following note has been added to the very bottom of the story:

EDITOR’S NOTE: An earlier edit of this story suggested that Sen. Kyl supported repealing the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship. While the senator has proposed hearings on the Constitution’s guarantees on citizenship and what he terms a “reward” for parents who are in the country illegally, Kyl’s communications director Andrew Wilder said that “he did not call for the ‘repeal’ of the 14th Amendment.”

The truth is, Sen. Kyl and a number of other lawmakers of both parties are considering a proposal to clarify the language of one sentence of Section 1 of the 14th amendment–the fuzzy language that currently makes it possible for illegal aliens to slip into the country to have their babies and thereby gain the privileges of citizenship for an entire family.

Of course this buried retraction comes too late. The lie has already traveled around the world several times before the truth can get its pants on. The lie is an everlasting part of the internet’s searchable history.

Of course, if bloggers like Daniel Foster over at NRO didn’t exist to call CBS on shameless smears like this, So’s story would have never been corrected.

This, by the way, is why the mainstream media despises the blogosphere. Accountability sucks.

In the post below, I mentioned John Piper’s concept of “the debtor’s ethic”–the subtle, seductive tendency for genuine heartfelt gratitude to God to metastasize into something spiritually unhealthy. That “something” is usually the impulse to pay God back or to want to feel you’ve done your bit to earn some additional future blessing.

It’s an important difference but a subtle one.

So how can you tell when you have slipped over from the cool pure waters of gratitude into the brackish muck of the debtor’s ethic? Here is a mental picture to help you understand the difference.

Imagine you’re trapped in a deep dark well with no means of ever climbing out. To make matters worse, the icy water is rising. Your situation is as desperate as it is hopeless.

Just as you are about to succumb to despair, you see a head silhouetted against the small circle of blue sky above you. A voice says, “Hold on. I’m going to lower down a rope.” And as that promised rope reaches you, what you are feeling in that moment is pure, crystalline gratitude.

Fifteen minutes later you are squinting and drip drying in the bright sunshine. You thank your rescuer for the 14th time. But now that your feet are on dry land, your pride and dignity are beginning to rouse themselves out of the terrified stupor that previously had them paralyzed. The next thing you know you hear yourself saying, “What do I owe you for the rescue?” Or, “Hey, can I paint your house for you?”

What you feel when that rope comes tumbling down the well shaft . . . that’s gratitude. And God’s offer of salvation and abundant life . . . that’s our rope.

A few days ago I found myself with my Bible in my lap, strolling through a familiar neighborhood of the Old Testament.

Rounding a well-worn corner of 2nd Samuel, I came across the passage in which David tells the prophet Nathan that he’s been thinking about building God a decent house in the city center instead of making Him live in a tent on the outskirts of town.

In reading the passage, I was struck by something I’d never really noticed before.

Here’s how Chapter 7 begins:

After the king was settled in his palace and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies around him, he said to Nathan the prophet, “Here I am, living in a palace of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.”

Nathan replied to the king, “Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the LORD is with you.”(NIV)

God had been extraordinarily good to David and he knew it. The Lord had blessed him with favor, victory, and abundance. Surrounded by the trappings of that success, David succumbed to one of the most common religious impulses known to man . . . he determined to do something for God.

This always sounds noble and praiseworthy. The prophet Nathan seemed to think so. Without even bothering to consult the Lord about David’s grandiose plans or even hear about them in detail, he essentially says, “Whatever you’re planning, go for it!”

That night, however, God grabs Nathan by the scruff of the neck and shares a few choice thoughts with him:

That night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying:

“Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the LORD says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”

Allow me to paraphrase God’s message here. He commands Nathan to go tell David, “Hold on just cotton picking minute there, pardner. Just when, exactly, did I ever mentioned being unhappy with my living arrangements? I’m not insecure. I don’t need a fancy house to validate my worth. I don’t recall asking you to help me out.”

Then God’s message for David takes an abrupt turn.

“Now then, tell my servant David, ‘This is what the LORD Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth . . . I will also give you rest from all your enemies. The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you'”

Suddenly the Lord goes from chastising the King for his presumption about doing God a favor to talking about how much he plans to bless him in the future. One minute, God is rebuking David for trying to do something for Him. In the next breath, God is telling David what other great things He plans to do for him.

There is a lot of important insight to be harvested in this little incident.

First, we see in David the universal tendency to respond to God’s incredible generosity by moving from heartfelt gratitude (which is appropriate in God’s eyes) to a works-based attempt to pay God back. It’s a religious impulse.

It’s what theologian John Piper has labeled “the debtor’s ethic.”

The debtor’s ethic says, “Because you have done something good for me, I feel indebted to do something good for you.” This impulse is not what gratitude was designed to produce. God meant gratitude to be a spontaneous expression in the gift and the good will of another. He did not mean it to be an impulse to return favors. If gratitude is twisted into a sense of debt, it gives birth to the debtor’s ethic–and the effect is to nullify grace. (Future Grace)

Of course the root of the debtor’s ethic is pride. There is a part of every fallen, flawed individual that resents the reality of our utter dependence upon God and his grace. That’s the same part that urges us to work or sacrifice or perform for God in order to generate some false sense of having earned God’s blessings.

This is an insult to God and the Lord’s feisty rebuke of David reflects this.

So what does God want from us? It’s simple. Obedience. “To obey is better than sacrifice.” (1 Sam. 15:22) Enjoy the blessings. Be humbly grateful. And obey.

That obedience will almost certainly involve serving and blessing others. “Do you love me, Peter?” Jesus asked. “Then feed my sheep.”

“Don’t try to do me any favors!” That’s the startling message from God to David. And to you and me I suspect.

I arrived home late last night after four days cradled in the pine-scented arms of southeastern Oklahoma’s hills.

We attended my sister’s wedding on Saturday and it proved to also be part family reunion for my mother and part class reunion for my younger sisters. The sisters are 10 and 11 years younger than me respectively, and an number of their old classmates attended the festivities.

I worshiped in the church of my childhood and youth on Sunday morning and saw my nephew baptized in the same tank in which I was dunked roughly 43 years ago. The upholstery fabric on the pews is a different color. Other than that the sanctuary looks almost exactly as it did back in 1967 when I walked the aisle and took the pastor’s outstretched hand.

I and about 180 fellow worshipers heard as fine a sermon as any preacher in Oklahoma would deliver on this day. It followed a song service led by my closest friend from high school.

Every trip home seems to be a long, warm nostalgia bath these days. I wonder if my girls are weary of me pointing out all the sites of my milestones and memories.

“That building there used to be the Red Bud store where I bagged groceries and stocked shelves.” “See that rocky cliff face over there? I was almost killed freehand climbing that thing with Ott Taylor my final week of high school.” “The dilapidated barn behind that old house there? There I was surprised by my first real kiss from a girl.”

It seems every road in town is littered with mental historical markers.

Monday I drove Mom, Dad and sisters to his appointment in Tulsa for an outpatient procedural attempt to remove the bladder cancer that we learned had returned on my previous trip.

I have nothing but wonderful things to say about the staff at the Oklahoma Surgical Hospital, in what was the old ORU City of Faith medical complex. They handled dad with amazing patience, empathy and compassion and will forever have my profound gratitude.