Hello! This might be a longer installment than usual, simply because I was unable to post last week, so I have about two weeks of interesting (and now, slightly stale) stuff to pass around. Which is fine with me.
First, an intriguing article from The Art of Manliness, which promotes traditional masculine virtues. It's intriguing not merely because of the subject matter—though as someone who enjoys the occasional glass of whiskey, of course I enjoyed reading about a shared interest—but because the blog owners are Mormons, who would not normally drink alcohol. It's a guest post. Obviously there's plenty of room in the tent for varying views on masculinity! (AoM featured articles on cocktails and pipe smoking as well in the past.)
In spite of its sometimes tumultuous history (see the Whiskey Rebellion), whiskey is a drink that men have enjoyed for centuries. Men like Mark Twain, Winston Churchill (often accompanied with a fine cigar), and Clark Gable imbibed regularly. When one thinks of masculine images, you often conjure up a picture of a man in a tweed coat with a glass of whiskey in his hand by the fire. If you’ve ever wanted to be that man and explore this manly tradition, you’re in luck. While we’ve given you a primer on Scotch whisky, today we’re going to broaden that and talk about whiskey as a whole—especially how to enjoy it!
[Read How to Drink Whiskey]
Jeff Allen of BarbWire.com was challenged once by a lesbian to provide citations from liberal scholars who agreed with the traditional view on homosexuality and the Bible. So he did—in multitudes.
The numerous Bible scholars to which I referred were each summarily dismissed. She contended that all of them were biased, homophobic, conservative scholars and therefore not to be trusted. Instead, she made the unsubstantiated claim that the vast majority of Bible scholars agreed with her interpretation. Although an anti-supernatural bias and a postmodern influence currently proliferate throughout academia, no names or statistics were ever provided to back up her general assertions. In fact, there has never been a study or survey conducted to determine the specific percentage of biblical professors on each side of the homosexual or same-sex "marriage" divide.
Nevertheless, she did issue me this challenge: To identify any liberal Ph.D. scholars who agreed with the traditional point of view on homosexuality in the Bible. She was convinced that no such academic individual existed—I myself even wondered about that at the time. But after only a little research, I found that there are actually several scholars who agree with the historic, true understanding of Scripture. And what's more, they are all highly respected (heavily published, recipients of numerous awards, and well-known in their fields) AND either homosexual themselves or strongly pro-"gay."
Matt Walsh, in his usual inimitable fashion, directly takes on Emilly Letts and the hullabaloo over the video she filmed of her own abortion, which went viral.
Now, Emily's clip does not show any of the possibly less palatable aspects of hiring a contract killer to murder your child. Instead, it shows her smiling and giggling about how she got pregnant but "wasn't ready for a baby." The portion where she actually gets the abortion only gives a glimpse of her face, as she chuckles and goes on about how "lucky" she is, and how "supportive" all of her abortion doctors have been.
It’s funny, I suppose murderers tend to be "supportive" when you pay them 400 dollars to do what they do best. . . .
The most confusing analysis came from PolicyMic, which trumpeted Emily's video as a thorough debunking of the biggest pro-life "myth." What’s the myth? That abortions can be dangerous. How did she "destroy" it? By providing 90 seconds of video footage of her smirking while happy music played in the background.
Be warned that, unlike Letts, Walsh actually does show pictures of the real dangers of abortion: to the aborted child.
A number of the commenters tried to play a variation of the "men can't get pregnant" card. Apparently they didn't read his earlier post on identity politics. I don't think that argument is going to wash, folks.
In response to the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram's abduction last month of nearly 300 Nigerian girls from their school, whom they apparently intend to sell into sex slavery, John Piper has written a brief but strong defense of the education of girls.
Boko Haram means "Western education is sinful." Part of the motivation behind the attack is their belief that it is sinful for girls to be formally educated at all. Educating girls is a Western effort to undermine the Islamic view of the family. . . .
While we advocate for vigorous efforts for the return of the young women, and while we pray for them and their evil abductors, it is fitting to remind ourselves why we as Christians encourage our girls and young women to seek a full education. What I mean by "full" will become clear.
[Read Why We Educate Our Girls]
Last one: Andrea Mrozek of ProWomanProLife writes in response to Justin Trudeau's announcement on Wednesday that the Liberal Party will neither allow pro-life candidates in the 2015 national election, nor let them vote contrary to the party's pro-choice policy in Parliament, apart from "grandfathering" currently sitting MPs. (That euphemism "pro-choice" is looking less and less realistic with every passing day.) Andrea instead takes aim at the Conservative Party, which also has done nothing to open the debate on abortion:
the Conservatives under Prime Minister Harper made clamping down on any abortion discussion their line. And since clamping down on abortion discussions/debate is standard fare for the most extreme fringe of the abortion rights movement, in a sense, Conservatives were pandering to a demographic that was never in a billion years going to vote for them anyway.
Now the Conservatives can't rise above what Justin Trudeau said, because they have themselves clamped down on freedom in the past–albeit to a lesser degree.
At least with the Conservatives, since they still allow both sides of the debate to exist within caucus, there's the theoretical possibility of voting for a candidate or government that will seek to limit the evil of abortion. Trudeau has taken that theoretical possibility away from his supporters, leaving only the Conservatives as a viable option for pro-life voters who prioritize that issue above all others. I've never been either a one-party or one-issue voter, but since the Liberals have decided to take the side of death, I suppose I won't be voting for them again unless and until that policy is reverted.
Until next time, Share and Enjoy.