|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 God's Little JokeWritten By Rev. Arendale Clancy FlabelJune 27, 2004 Everyone knows President Bush has a pipeline to the Almighty. We know this because we are reminded of it by no less than President Bush himself. No other president has worn his religion on his sleeve like President Bush has done. We in the Christian community are pleased at his faith-based initiative programs and his efforts to eliminate the unnecessary gap between church and state. After all, we live in "one nation, under Jesus," and we should never forget this. Now, President Bush has taken a lot of flack from the left over his failure to so far locate the weapons of mass destruction that were ballyhooed at the beginning at the Iraq War. We know the weapons are there. Colin Powell told us they were. Don Rumsfeld said it too. That little angry young black woman that works for President Bush has mentioned it too. But, most of all we know the weapons are hiding there somewhere because the Almighty commanded his servant, George W. Bush, to attack Iraq before those terrible weapons were used against us. Some of you have asked me, "Reverend Flabel, if God told President Bush to attack Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction, why didn't God tell President Bush where the weapons were hiding?" I am sure there is a good explanation for this. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you what it is except to say that sometimes God likes to play little jokes on us. You know, like when he created gay people. I can only believe that God having a little laugh at President Bush's expense. He directed Bush to start a war but he's holding back some critical information. Maybe God thought Bush would figure out where the weapons were on his own. If that's the case, God better rethink that one, because George is having one heck of a time locating anything more than a slingshot and some large rocks. I have no doubt that those weapons will be found before election day. President Bush just needs to pray extra hard and hope that God spills the beans. If not, the next joke God plays on us may be President Kerry. |
An Epitaph For Bill Bennettby Rev. Arendale Clancy Flabel Conservatives everywhere are mourning the passing of Bill Bennett, the former drug czar, Republican pundit, Clinton bloodhound, and general purveyor of good virtues. Bennett's passing occurred suddently, without much warning to anyone, making it all the more tragic. It's truly a sad day for us all to have to say goodbye to the moral compass of the right wing. Bennett's not dead, mind you - at least not literally - but his career has been cut short in its prime by a debilitating case of "hypocriticus homosapious," which I am told is the Latin for those who extol virtues they do not themselves espouse. Bennett could certainly talk the talk. "The Book of Virtues: A Treasury of Great Moral Stories," "Moral Compass: Stories for Life's Journey," and "The Death of Outrage: Bill Clinton and the Assault on American Ideals" are just some of the books Bennett wrote. You can, no doubt, tell what these books are about, just from their titles. The problem for Bennett wasn't the talking - it was the walking. Bill Bennett, as it turns out, has gambled away around $8 million. According to reports, Bennett's own moral compass pointed him to the high stakes rooms in the casinos of Las Vegas and Atlantic City. What's worse is that Bennett lives in denial. He claims to have "broken even" over the years, but $8 million in the hole doesn't sound like "breaking even" to me, even if you're not betting the "milk money," as Bennett claimed. Bennett's sin of gambling probably rates about an 8.5 on God's richter scale of trespasses (slightly below Bill Clinton's having sexual relations with another adult, which God would probably rate a 9.2). Still, it's not a matter of who's sin was greater. It's a matter of whether a man who can't walk past a one-armed bandit or a card game without becoming aroused is suited to be a torch bearer for moral crusades. Some in the Republican party might think that Bennett is still capable of carrying that torch. Others of us, particularly those of us in the church, however, expect a more accurate moral compass. Return to Top |
Rick Santorum: Loves Gays But Hates When They Sodomize Each Otherby Rev. Arendale Clancy Flabel Senator Rick Santorum, a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, has been taking a lot of heat for comments he has made about homesexuals. What he said that has gotten the liberals up in arms is this: "I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts." It is the old "love the sinner, hate the sin" argument. You see, God really loves gay people and so does Senator Rick Santorum. But God, like Senator Rick Santorum, hates the fact that they perform deviant, unnatural homosexual acts on each other. Our God is the God of love, but he is also a God of hate, when it comes to deviant homosexual acts. If only the homosexuals would begin having sex with people of the opposite sex, then the problem would be solved. God and Senator Rick Santorum could love the homosexuals then without having to hate their sinful ways. Some of you may be wondering, "how did this even get to be an issue?" It began when Texas law enforcement officers burst into a house in search of illegal weapons. What they found were two men playing "rear-end bumper cars" with each other. The men were arrested and charged with sodomy, which is still a crime in Texas. Some people may argue that what goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults should be their own business. I disagree. What goes on behind closed doors is Senator Rick Santorum's business, and it's God's business. In the interest of upholding the law, we should all be willing to have our doors broken down from time to time for emergency police sodomy searches. These searches would necessarily need to take place in the dead of night when people are more likely to engage in illicit hanky panky. Better yet, the government could simply require that every citizen install a camera in the bedroom, which would allow the police to monitor the sexual activities of people and make sure nobody is using the "back door" to avoid the law. I am told that exactly such a requirement is included in Attorney General Ashcroft's new "Patriot II" Act. To further President Bush's "faith-based initiative" programs, I would suggest that the churches become directly involved with some of the surveillance necessary to enforce the anti-sodomy laws. I am sure that we would have no shortage of members willing to donate their time to monitor live video feeds from America's bedrooms. I applaud the efforts of Senator Rick Santorum for bringing this issue into the public eye. The private sexual activities of Americans have too long been kept behind closed doors. It's time to get serious about the prevention of sexual deviancy. Move over America, Uncle Sam is climbing into bed with you. Return to Top |
Good and Bad Religious Zealots: Bush v. Emmanuelby Rev. Arendale Clancy Flabel The recovery of Elizabeth Smart was one of God's grand miracles for which we can all give thanks. As the story comes out about her kidnapper, a drifter and self-styled prophet who called himself "Emmanuel," I am reminded of how far people can go in the name of religion. Emmanuel claimed to be a man of God. He claimed to have been following God's intention when he kidnapped Elizabeth Smart at knife point. He obviously was deluded. God does talk to some people. He gives them direction and guidance about their lives. He can even give them answers to puzzling questions. If you pray hard enough and with sufficient frequency, you will hear the voice of God, sometimes in your head but usually in your heart. You don't actually hear an "out loud" voice - if you do, it's either someone playing a trick on you or you've gone crazy. God used to speak out loud to people back in Biblical times, such as when Moses went up to get the Ten Commandments and God spoke to him. God has not spoken out loud for years, which is too bad. I sometimes think that God's voice probably sounds a little like Charlton Heston's. President Bush also claims to be following God's message in his crusade to eliminate the Iraqis and their anti-American terroristic weapons of massive destruction. God does not like these kinds of weapons, unless they are in the hands of his soldiers, like President Bush or that general that runs Pakistan. President Bush is acting on God's true word while Emmanuel was acting on what he thought God wanted. This is an important distinction. We know this because what Emmanuel was doing to Elizabeth Smart was very bad. What President Bush is planning to do to the people of Iraq is a very good, even though many of them will die or be mutilated by our bombs. It is all a reminder of that sometimes religious zealots can go to far, as in Emmanuel's case, while other times, they carry out God's will, as in President Bush's case. Return to Top |
Who Would Jesus Bomb?by Rev. Arendale Clancy Flabel As a man of God, I've been asking myself this question. While I am sure there are those who would argue that Jesus would be on the side of the anti-war demonstrators begging for peace at all costs, I have concluded otherwise. In fact, I think all this peace talk would turn Jesus' stomach. The Bible tells many stories of Jesus' love and compassion for his fellow men. However, it also tells of wars, murders, kidnappings, drownings, stonings, smitings, plagues, slayings, lies and deceptions, betrayals and gruesome deaths, like crucifixtions. It occurs to me that our God is one who doesn't always favor peace. In fact, you might argue that when God doesn't like something, he's not afraid to use violence to get his way. President Bush is a little like God, in that he too likes to have his way and doesn't mind bullying people to get it. True, many women and children will die. That's inevitable since 40% of Iraq's population is under age 15. But Jesus once said, "Suffer the children" which I believe can be loosely translated as "the children must suffer too," so bombing the little kids is okay. I am told that President Bush prays daily so I know he is in regular contact with God. I suspect God probably speaks more directly with President Bush than he does with the rest of us, given the great responsibility the President has for our safety and the high regard God has for our country, it being "one nation under Him" and all. It would not surprise me to know that God tells the President which forces to maneuver into place, which days the bombings should begin, how many bombs should be dropped, and which people we ought to kill first. In fact, I would encourage President Bush to say a short prayer before each bombing order, just to make sure God's still on board with the plan. So, as the shameful anti-American war protesters persist in encouraging a peacful resolution to this whole crisis, I rest assured in knowing that as a man of God, President Bush is following the divine will of God. The bombings will begin soon. God will be pleased. Let's all take some time to pray. Return to Top |
Bush Court Appointee Facing Filibusterby Rev. Arendale Clancy Flabel President Bush attempted to appoint Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Court of Appeals last year. The Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee kept the nomination from going to the Senate floor for a vote. Now, Republicans control the Judiciary Committee and voted to send the nomination to the floor. Democrats, who are a 49-51 minority in the Senate have vowed to filibuster the nomination. Why, you ask, would the liberals seek to keep Mr. Estrada from being appointed to the Court of Appeals? They claim that it is because Mr. Estrada hasn't made his views known to the Senate on key issues, such as abortions. For this, he has been condemned to be a victim of a filibuster. I don't think Mr. Estrada's views are all that secret. The Christian Coalition has thrown its support behind Mr. Estrada, which tells me a little about his "unspoken" views on abortion and "women's rights." I don't think Pat Robertson would be backing a candidate who was in favor of killing babies. The D.C. Court of Appeals is considered a stepping stone to the U.S. Supreme Court. With two justices on the verge of retirement, it is widely thought that Mr. Estada's tenure on the Court of Appeals might be a short one and that he would be appointed to the highest court upon the first vacancy. This is certainly good news for pro-life advocates. President Bush is dedicated to doing everything he can to bring Christian values to the Supreme Courtm which involves overturning Roe v. Wade. That's really what all this is about. If Mr. Estrada is appointed, Roe v. Wade will ultimately become a terrible memory. Let's all show our support by doing all we can to encourage our Senators to vote in favor of Mr. Estrada. Return to Top |
The Culture of Lifeby Rev. Arendale Clancy Flabel President Bush gave an encouraging speech to pro-life activists on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. In it, he stressed the importance of a "culture of life" in our country. He also indicated his desire to sign legislation banning the so-called "partial birth abortion" and called for "compassionate alternatives" to abortion, like adoption. I found particularly intriguing the President's comment that he wanted to "extend state health-care coverage for unborn children." In times like these, when the liberals are so concerned about everyone having health care, I would think they would welcome this overture in that direction from the President. I had never really considered it, but why shouldn't "unborn children" be entitled to health care? Unborn children are really no different from born children except that they're not born. If an unborn child needs to see a doctor, though, the compassionate alternative is to let the child see the doctor. Of course, the doctor wouldn't actually "see" the child unless he used one of those sonicagrams. Too much today is made about women's right to "choose." Where did all this talk come from? It certainly did not come from the Bible which encourages women to obey their husbands. I hazard to say that if more women heeded this advice and follwed God's words, they wouldn't need to make all these "choices." Don't forget that man was made in God's image but woman was made from a rib. Men make decisions. Ribs don't. Fortunately, the whole abortion debate won't be settled by those feminist women out there with their signs, marching on Washington like Grant taking Richmond. It's shameful, these women speaking up like they've got minds of their own. Who's watching after their husbands while they're off marching and carrying on? Who's making dinner for their husbands? What "choices" do the husbands have --McDonalds or TV dinners? No, my friends, this is a debate that will ultimately be settled by the seven wise men and the two ladies of the U.S. Supreme Court -- the same group that decided President Bush should be our President instead of that whiny Al Gore, crying about how he got half a million more votes than Bush, as if somehow that mattered. I suspect that these justices will make the right "choice" on the abortion issue, the same way they made the right choice by installing our President. Return to Top |
National Sanctity of Life Dayby Rev. Arendale Clancy Flabel President Bush has declared Sunday, January 18, National Sanctity of Life Day. The President stated that the day would be one to "reaffirm the value of human life and renew our dedication to ensuring that every American has access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That the day will fall close to the 30th anniversay of Roe v. Wade, which legalized the killing of babies, is no coincidence. The President, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the five conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court are committed to overturning this misguided decision, and with God's help, I have no doubt they will one day succeed. The President also said: "My administration has championed compassionate alternatives to abortion, such as helping women in crisis through maternity group homes, encouraging adoption, promoting abstinence education, and passing laws requiring parental notification and waiting periods for minors." It is this comment that I would like to make the focus of this article. The President would like to "encourage abstinence education" and pass laws "requiring parental notification and waiting periods for minors." I believe what he intends is that no minor will have sex without first giving "parental notification" of the intended sex act and going through a "waiting period" after notification has been given. This makes a great deal of sense to me. A child simply gives the parent notification that he or she intends to have sex, the persons they intend to have sex with, the type of sex they anticipate having, and the time and day that the proposed sex act will take place. After receiving the notification, there will be a "waiting period," probably something like 2 weeks. During this period, parents will have a chance to educate their children about abstinence -- God's only chosen form of birth control. During the "waiting period," children can rethink their decisions regarding sex. Parents can use this time to turn off the MTV videos of Britney Spears dancing around practically naked and remind their children about the life of Jesus and how he abstained from sex right up to the time he died. Some might argue that abstinence is just not practical. I am a man of the Word, and I do not concern myself with what is practical. I concern myself with what is right. The Bible is very clear that sex is wrong unless it is between men and women who are married and initiated by the husband whom the wife must obey. The National Sanctity of Life Day is a good first step in returning morals to America. I would challenge President Bush to take it one step further though and to institute a National Day of Abstinence on which no patriotic American will have sex. Even better, we could desigate a month as National Abstinence Month and during that month, everyone in America would be encouraged to abstain from sex. Imagine people wearing little buttons that say "I didn't have sex today, did you?" People greeting each other with "I haven't had any in weeks, how about you?" Re-establishing morals requires courage and commitments of the sort that President Bush has shown a willingness to make. Let's remember that on Sunday. Return to Top |
Lott Fell Into Devious Trapby Rev. Arendale Clancy Flabel Trent Lott, the beseiged former Senate Majority Leader, made some comments that some would characterize as inappropriate. Whether those comments were in fact inappropriate is not the subject of this column. Instead, I want to focus on compassion and forgiveness, as they affect this complicated man. Senator Lott has apologized for his remarks concerning his pride over his state of Mississippi supporting Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat party in the 1948 presidential election. Even though an apology may not have been necessary in this case, Senator Lott nonetheless has graciously made an overture to his colleagues on the left and issued one anyway. Yet, it seems not to be enough for some. Days after apologizing profusely for simply speaking his mind, Senator Lott recognized what should have been apparent to him all along. In his own words, he "fell into their trap." The "they" in this case is the liberal left wing radical media, which used his unfortunate choice of words to crucify the Senator. Shame on you, New York Times. Shame on you, Washington Post. Satan often lays traps for innocent victims. In this case, the trap was cleverly disguised, so much so that Senator Lott didn't recognize it as such until it was too late. A birthday party for a colleage, which I suspect was organized by agents of the left; a toast to that colleague, which the Senator was probably encouraged to make by radicals; and an off color comment, most likely distorted and repeated to the media by some communist sympathizer like Hillary Clinton. What a clever trap it was. I say to Senator Lott, fear not, for your apologies have been heard and accepted, if not by the traitors of the left, by no less an authority than God above. If there was anything to really apologize about, and I'm not convinced there was, God has forgiven Senator Lott. I think it's time the radical leftists did too. Return to Top |