More on the VA Tech tragedy

2
by on April 20, 2007 at 4:39 pm

As the news out of Blacksburg continued to unfold this week, we saw good and evil starkly juxtaposed against one another — evil through the troubled mind and unspeakable acts of Cho Seung-Hui, good in the heroism of the likes of Liviu Lebrescu, who gave his life to save his students.

The associate pastor at our church is acquainted with one of the only two survivors from one of the classrooms that Cho attacked. In our church’s e-newsletter this week, he shared some details about the VA Tech massacre that, to my knowledge, have not been made public by the national media.

Life is full of redemptive analogies — events or stories that help us to better apprehend the mysteries of God’s nature, character, or activity. The story my pastor related is one such analogy; while sobering, it gives us a bit of a glimpse into the grace God extends to us through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Here is the story of Gil, VA Tech engineering student and survivor of Monday’s horrific violence, as related by my pastor. I offer it here without comment, as there is nothing I could say that would add to its poignance or impact:

“Saved By The Blood”

This past Sunday in a ministry time during the service, I shared that it is hard for me to imagine sacrificing one of my daughter’s lives for another. At best, I might be willing to offer my life for someone else. Yet, God allowed Christ to suffer horribly to save me.

In less than 24 hours, a young man that I grew to know well many years ago in Harrisonburg found himself in a classroom at Virginia Tech, facing death square in the face. Gil was in a graduate engineering class with 13 other students and a professor when a gunman entered his class and with a semi-automatic 9mm pistol began shooting students on the front row. The gunman moved from left to right and Gil sat on the last chair in the front row, on the shooter’s right. Gil dove for the floor, at the side wall of the room, by a radiator. He felt the student next to him dive for cover in the same way landing on top of him. Not fully covering Gil, but “scissored” across his body.

Gil felt a bullet strike the guy on top of him. Then he felt some searing pain in his neck. The bullet had grazed Gil’s back and lodged next to the mastoid bone just behind and below his left ear. The shooter left the room and they heard shoots being fired nearby. Gil could only think about his wife and son in those moments. He strategized with a few others in the class that the best plan was to lay still and “play dead.”

The shooter was right outside the door. The Indonesian student that lay on top of Gil was bleeding and laid completely still. No talking, nothing was heard from him. Just when he thought the terror was over, the shooter returned to the room. He fired at the bodies that lay all around the room. Gil recounted that at one point, the shooter was standing right beside where he was lying underneath the other student. He felt the impact of 3-4 more bullets fired into the body above him, but none of them seemed to hit Gil.

The shooter left and shot more outside. Then silence. No more shooting.

Gil remained in position for a time and gradually the police arrived. Another student had somehow escaped the room. Only Gil and another were able to walk out of the room. The shooter had shot himself before the police could engage him. Gil was hospitalized and released late Tuesday morning. As Gil began telling his story, he has realized that being covered in another student’s blood may have led the shooter to believe that Gil was already dead.

There is a father of an Indonesian son who grieves today the seemingly needless loss of his son’s life. Maybe one day soon, he will hear how his son’s blood saved another student.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

in Current Events, Life, The Universe, and EVERYTHING

,

Read More

My heart goes out to the Hokies

0
by on April 16, 2007 at 5:58 pm

tMR veterans are aware that The MonT-SteR has done a fair share of trash talkin’ about the Virginia Tech Hokies. But today the students, faculty, and administration of Virginia Tech have nothing but my heartfelt prayers and sympathy.

If you’re following the news at all, you probably know that an unidentified gunman went on a rampage this morning on the Blacksburg, VA campus, killing 32 and wounding 21 others. The shootings occurred in a dorm and at least two classrooms.

To the families and friends of the fallen, may the God of all comfort attend your shock and grief with the tender embrace of His Spirit. The Lord of Life cries with you today.

In the face of such horrific, senseless violence, the only other thing I know how to say at the moment is a tearful “Maranatha.”

Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

in Current Events, Life, The Universe, and EVERYTHING

,

Read More

Again with the global warming…

0
by on March 13, 2007 at 5:14 am

Well, friends, I just can’t let it rest.

Today, I stumbled across a remarkable, eminently sensible British documentary about climate change. It affirms many of the points I made in my last two installments of From the MonT-SteR’s Mouth™, and essentially pokes devastating holes in the theory of global warming as a human-induced phenomenon.

Among the documentary’s highlights:

  • It dispenses with the ridiculous notion that scientists who are skeptical about abiogenic CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming are invariably in the employ of “big oil” and therefore suspect. Ellen Goodman used such arguments in her recent op-ed piece, giving the false impression that scientists who ascribe to popular global warming theory are as pure as the wind-driven snow and free of all bias or self-interest. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scientists compete for funding, friends, and are very adept at capitalizing on the zeitgeist of the moment in order to finance their research. As Nigel Calder states, one might not get funding for a simple study on squirrels; but mention that the study has a special concern for the effect of global warming on their nut gathering habits, and the grant is much more likely to come through. Why don’t we ever hear about the corruption of science at the hands of hysterical global warming apologists in the employ of big government?
  • It makes the point, as I have, that climate change is nothing new. It’s a natural phenomenon whose engine is comprised of multiple factors, all ancient and far more powerful than all of humanity combined, and in some cases, lightyears away.
  • The chief premise of Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary (ahem!) is thoroughly torpedoed.
  • It frames the battle over global warming as a social justice issue. This aspect should be of grave concern to prominent Christian leaders who have embraced the activist community associated with popular global warming theory (Rick Warren, are you listening?). Impoverished, developing nations are being told by the likes of Greenpeace that they mustn’t use fossil fuels and other natural resources to propel their economies forward. They are told they must use alternative fuels, such as solar energy and wind power — all out of a misguided concern to avert further proliferation of CO2 emissions. But these forms of energy are so expensive and difficult to harness that the wealthy West has trouble using them. Thus, they are untenable for use in poor nations, where staggeringly short life expectancy rates can be directly linked to the unavailability of electrical and gas power that we take for granted every day. In short, “green” thought vis-a-vis global warming actually has the effect of compounding and solidifying the misery of millions in third-world countries. I don’t know about you, but I don’t find it “Christian” in the least to support such a paradigm.

I often wonder if the debate can even be won by the right people at this stage. The global warming propagandists have enjoyed unfettered access to the public ear for nearly 20 years. But I’m encouraged that informed, credible skeptics are increasingly finding a voice. The fine documentary I’ve described above is evidence of that.

So, for your viewing pleasure, here is “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Hope you find it thought-provoking and eye-opening:

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

in Current Events, Issues, Politics

,

Read More

Hapless Gore plagued by more than Oscar

0
by on February 28, 2007 at 2:08 am

Katie Couric has been wringing her hands over the marginalization of Al Gore due to the Oscar nod his silly global warming movie got this weekend. Recent news shows that her concern is misplaced. It’s not that Al Gore is Hollywood’s anointed climate change activist — his real problem has to do with walking his talk.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

in Current Events, Issues, Politics

,

Read More

The MonT-SteR on Global Warming

0
by on February 19, 2007 at 4:53 am

When a Boston Globe columnist uses the intellectually flabby, ad hominem no-no to derisively cast global warming skeptics as the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, it is the cause for some MonT-SteR Consternation™. Take a listen:

Part I

Part II

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

in Current Events, Issues, Politics

Read More

Barbaro treated better than Terri Schiavo

0
by on January 30, 2007 at 4:30 am

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

in Current Events, Issues, Politics

, , , ,

Read More

Annoying ad hominem trend

0
by on December 18, 2006 at 11:24 pm

in Current Events, Issues, Politics

Read More

In defense of Cumberland (again)

0
by on December 16, 2006 at 4:47 am

Back when the Abu Ghraib scandal first broke in 2004, I was horrified to learn that the reservists who had engaged in the tawdry, sadistic behavior captured in those now infamous photos were part of a unit that is stationed near my beloved hometown, Cumberland, MD.

As the rest of the world learned this, they began to wonder, “What is it about Cumberland that would breed such perverse, twisted, abusive soldiers?” Then, reporters from the rest of the world flocked to Cumberland to investigate, convinced that the barbarism of a handful of reservists would be clearly reflected in the community at large.

I wrote a blog post in May of that year as a rebuttal to such ridiculous, ill-formed generalizations. It’s an unfortunate truth of life that it only takes a few bad eggs to besmirch the reputation of many. As axiomatic as that is, I had hoped that intelligent journalists would find a way to paint a balanced picture of the city I was born and grew up in. I was wrong then, and the media continues to prove me wrong.

Last Sunday, 60 Minutes aired a report on Joe Darby, the reservist who accidentally uncovered the abuses at Abu Ghraib and blew the whistle on them. Joe had been a resident of the Cumberland area; when the time came for him to return home from Iraq, the Army told him it was simply too dangerous to go back to Cumberland. A security assessment conducted by the Army showed that resentment toward Darby for his role in exposing the scandal was so intense that it represented a genuine threat to his life.

Understand, friends, that I do not doubt the Army’s conclusions about the danger posed to Darby and his family. Nor do I dispute Anderson Cooper’s right to report it. But I strenuously object to the scurrilous manner in which Cooper and CBS suggested that the entire city of Cumberland was united in monolithic, snarling hatred for Joe Darby and his actions.

The report’s inaccuracies:

  • Anderson Cooper referred to Cumberland as “a military town” in the report, which is a gross mischaracterization. I currently live in Virginia Beach, which is home to the Oceana Naval Air Station. Virginia Beach is part of the broader Tidewater area, where the Navy has a significant presence with at least two bases. Navy battle groups are stationed here, and their vessels are repaired in local shipyards. This, friends, is a military town. From what I’ve read, Cumberland is home to a small reserve unit of around 250 soldiers and a tiny VFW post. That is not a military town. Besides, I grew up there. I lived there for over twenty years. Not once did I ever hear someone refer to Cumberland as “a military town.” But painting it that way may have served the intended rhetorical bent of Cooper’s piece. Cumberland was neatly transformed into an ideological foil — a fabricated example of “a military town” whose sympathies were with criminals rather than a courageous whistle-blower. This calumniates the very mindset of the armed forces, suggesting that Abu Ghraib was the natural outflow of our military’s character and surrounding culture. Such assertions are not without precedent. Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh recently stated that the American military has never been more murderous or wantonly destructive as it has been in Iraq. I have no doubt that many in the mainstream media are sympathetic to his view. I wonder where Mr. Cooper stands? Or is his apparent hit-piece on Cumberland indicative of some agreement with Hersh’s vitriolic and unfounded prejudice against the military?
  • In any case, identifying Cumberland as a military town laid the groundwork for Cooper’s report to move from the particular to the general in an unwarranted fashion by extrapolating the views of some Cumberland residents to all of them. At about five and a half minutes into the report, Cooper describes Cumberland as “a military town that felt Darby had betrayed his fellow soldiers.” Cooper explicitly states here that the entire city was collectively and uniformly hostile to Darby. Not once during the 11-minute piece did Cooper interview a Cumberland resident who supported Darby or applauded his actions. This, I presume, was to suggest such people don’t exist in Cumberland, but they incontrovertibly do. Mere logic indicates that this would be the case, but a simple visit to the editorial page of the Cumberland Times-News or a Cumberland message board confirms it. I cannot fathom why Mr. Cooper, a supposedly accomplished journalist, failed to do this.

The bottom line, beloved readers, is that I wept to see my home town — a city that has struggled to overcome economic hardship and adversity for decades — portrayed in such a negative light in the national media. The fact that this was unnecessary and unfair adds insult to injury. It seems that Cooper and his ilk were unable to find a way to lionize Joe Darby without demonizing Cumberland. Something tells me they didn’t try very hard.

The drumbeat of media bias rolls on. Cumberland is just one of its latest victims.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

in Current Events, Issues, Politics

, , , ,

Read More

MonT-SteR Talk

0
by on January 28, 2006 at 5:42 am

Every so often I listen to Bill O’Reilly’s radio show, and while I often agree with him, we consistenly part company when he discusses morality. His ideas about morality are as self-contradictory and ineffectual as can be. He may come down on the right side of the issue here and there, but the way he gets there is an absolute mess. A couple of discussions he had with callers this week were good examples of this; I thought I’d highlight them by conducting an imaginary interview with O’Reilly. I’ll have to do these more often — they’re challenging and fun to create!

The MonT-SteR: Howdy friends! This is MonT-SteR Talk, where I — Your One and Only Favorite MonT-SteR™ — have the amazing opportunity to interview the glitterati and cognoscenti of our times. We’ve got a great show for you today. Up first: he’s the firebrand of Fox News and host of the fabled No Spin Zone, Bill O’Reilly. Mr. O’Reilly, thanks for agreeing to appear on MonT-SteR Talk today. I’m delighted to have you on the program.

Bill O’Reilly: Thanks. Glad to be here lookin’ out for the folks, as always.

TM: Mr. O’Reilly, I know you are on the receiving end of a lot of bashing and vitriol, and it doesn’t come from just one side of the political spectrum.

BOR: That’s right, it doesn’t. Too many of the folks out there are driven by ideology, both on the right and the left. They’re the ones who can’t stand the No Spin Zone. We cut through the spin and the propaganda to get to the truth of the matter, and we do that without partiality.

TM: Well, let me come to the point. There’s a specific reason why I asked you to come on MonT-SteR Talk. Whenever you discuss morality from a faith-based perspective, I find that I am in profound disagreement with you.

BOR: Okay.

TM: Let me give you an example. A couple days ago on your program, you were dealing with the issue of state sanction of gay marriage. A gentleman called your radio program and commented that sodomy was a crime because the Founding Fathers and their generation — who, according to the caller, founded this country based upon the Bible — knew that same sex attraction was proscribed in the Scriptures.

BOR: Yes, I remember that call.

TM: Okay, and here (as I understood it) was your response. You disputed the notion that the Founding Fathers used the Bible as the basis for the country’s founding documents, and said that they were guided instead by a more generic Judeo-Christian ethos. Am I okay so far?

BOR: Keep going.

TM: You then went on to say in essence that using Scripture as the basis for arguing and deciding the issues of our time — like gay marriage — can’t be done. You said that one must make a “secular” appeal within the public arena of ideas.

BOR: Right. We’re not a monolithic culture. You can’t go out there and expect to make and enforce laws based on the Bible.

TM: And yesterday, you went so far as to say that people who quote the Scriptures (I think you specifically mentioned Leviticus and the Old Testament) and expect or desire them to the basis of law in our country are “nutty.” Is that accurate?

BOR: It is accurate, and I stand by it.

TM: Well, it’s at that point that your ideas about morality become completely incoherent.

BOR: How so?

TM: You consistently appeal to a Judeo-Christian ethos that animated the thinking of the Founding Fathers as they framed our democratic republic. And you rely on the existence of this Judeo-Christian ethos to rebuke what you call the “secular progressives” who are attempting to steer the social fabric of our country away from that paradigm. Now, my question to you, sir, is this: Where does that Judeo-Christian ethic come from, if not from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures contained in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible?

BOR: You miss my point. The Founding Fathers didn’t take law straight from the Bible in chapter and verse fashion. Last time I checked, we don’t have a theocracy in this country.

TM: Do you admit that the Judeo-Christian ethos you refer to is derived from the Bible?

BOR: Yes.

TM: Then I fail to see how you can reasonably maintain that codifying (or wanting to codify) the moral ideas and principles advanced by the Bible in either our founding documents or modern law is “nutty.”

BOR: Look — you’re not going to win any arguments about which social direction our country should go today by quoting Scripture. It doesn’t work like that. Too many people don’t even accept the Bible as binding in any way. They don’t believe it. You’re not going to convince them by saying, “Hey, you can’t do this because Leviticus says not to.”

TM: Then how does one frame a moral argument at all?

BOR: You have to do it in a secular manner.

TM: You’re contradicting yourself, then.

BOR: No, I’m not.

TM: You are. What point is there in appealing to Judeo-Christian ideals as you do if you can’t even argue by them?

BOR: Arguing by Judeo-Christian ideals is different than arguing from the Bible.

TM: But you just admitted that a Judeo-Christian ethos is derived from the Bible.

BOR: Look. I don’t want to sit here and go back and forth. It’s pointless. Tell me your bottom line, I’ll respond to it, and let’s move on.

TM: My bottom line is this: trying to argue morality by secular means simply cedes the high ground to the secular progressives. You’re coming at the whole question of morality on their terms. Why should we do that? Take the issue of gay marriage, for example. How are you going to argue against that on secular grounds? To say that the family unit is traditionally composed a certain way is only to invite the question: What’s to stop us from changing the definition of the family unit? You don’t have an argument to stand on until you bring in the notion of a Creator who has a telos — a purpose and design of His own — for human sexuality or the human family. Now, our founding documents recognize the existence of this Creator, and they depend on the notion that His decree supersedes that of nations or their leaders. If He bestows liberty, as the Declaration of Independence states, then no people or government can licitly claim the right or ability to take that away. In a word, it’s immoral because it is proscribed not by men, but by God.

I think this shows that a Judeo-Christian ethos presupposes that moral good is theonomous. It follows logically that it is also theonomously revealed in the Scriptures the Judeo-Christian ethos depends on. When you throw out arguing morals along those lines, you really are cutting off your nose to spite your own face.

BOR: Well, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on that.

TM: Okay. Unfortunately, we’re out of time. Thanks for being on the program, Mr. O’Reilly.

BOR: Thank you.

in Current Events, Issues, Politics, Theology

, ,

Read More

Katrina craziness

0
by on September 10, 2005 at 2:52 am

Where does one begin?

Since Katrina made landfall, The MonT-SteR has done quite a bit of news shopping to keep abreast of things. The news has been hard to stomach. I was appalled by the stream-of-misery stories emanating from the Superdome, to say nothing the tales of families torn asunder by the evacuation process, or the teary pictures of motherless children and childless mothers searching desperately for loved ones. One photo in particular got to me. It was a shot of people who had finally been herded onto a charter bus to be taken from the Superdome to Houston, TX. The bus seats were full of glum, exhausted, shell-shocked faces, all deathly silent and wearing vacant stares. I wept when I saw it.

The people of our country have responded in kindness and compassion. Some have given generous amounts of money. Others have opened their homes to displaced families. Many have traveled directly to the affected regions to lend aid and comfort in person. And then we have these shining jewels of humanity at its best:

  • It bothers me greatly that the Christian voices that seem to trumpet the loudest in times of tragedy are those who proclaim (and seem to relish) the arrival of God’s judgment in the likes of disasters like Katrina. I recently preached a sermon on Luke 13 that deals with this very issue. Jesus cites two examples of suffering or catastrophe where people were killed by human agency or accidental means. He says to his audience in verses 3 and 5, “Do you think that the people who suffered these fates are greater sinners or worse culprits than everyone else? I tell you, no; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” What He is saying is this: 1) Don’t assume that God metes out judgment in every instance of disaster or personal calamity, 2) By extension, don’t assume that you are more righteous than those who suffer calamity, and 3) As a corrollary to number 2, don’t assume that you are escaping judgment just because disaster hasn’t befallen you.
     
    Did God judge New Orleans by sending Katrina? It’s not beyond the realm of possibility, nor is it without biblical precedent. God is love, but He is also judge, and he does bring the nations to account for their deeds. But Luke 13 seems to indicate that Christians ought to refrain from being so glib in their pronouncements of gloom and doom. The locus of the Church’s ministry in such times ought to be in reaching out with the love, care, and compassion of Christ — not in smug proclamations of judgment from the comfort of an easy chair.
     
    Ever heard of Jonah, folks? You know, the guy who wanted God to fry those brutal, savage, imperialistic Assyrians? Did God allow him to just sit back and wait for Him to destroy Nineveh? Or did He send Jonah in mission to them in hopes that they would repent so they could be spared? And what did Jonah learn in the end — that God enjoys laying waste to entire cities, or that He’d rather spare them? Is God pleased when his people are happy about or hopeful for the destruction of sinners? Or would he prefer them to be motivated by His heart for compassion and rescue and reach out to sinners with His truth?
  • Kanye West, a rapper with an album at the top of the charts, participated in a telethon to raise funds for Katrina victims. Mr. West decided to turn this charitable outreach into his personal soapbox and proceeded to lambaste the alleged racism of the media and President Bush. He has been roundly (and rightly) criticized for his petulant grandstanding, but that hasn’t deterred him. On the Ellen deGeneres show this morning, West continued his anti-Bush tirade:
    “They have been trying to sweep us (African-Americans) under the kitchen sink and it was so in people’s faces and so on TV… that they couldn’t even hide it any more.

    “Down there, people are living below the poverty level to start off with, before this happened.

    “A year ago I was on tour with USHER and we had a hurricane hit Florida and everybody was saying, ‘If this hurricane went to Louisiana, if it went to Mississippi, they wouldn’t be able to handle it.’ (That was) a year ago – and there was nothing done about it.”

    Three words, Kanye: GET A GRIP. The concerns about New Orleans’s extreme vulnerability to a strong hurricane predate the Bush administration. Hordes of city, state, and federal officials have been acutely aware of it for a long time. Why didn’t you accuse them all of trying to “sweep… (African-Americans) under the kitchen sink”? Back when the Army Corps of Engineers first built the levee system, they knew it would only handle a category 3 storm. Are they racists too? Are the politicians who authorized the project (not George W. Bush) also racists for not expending the additional billions of dollars to make the levees high enough to withstand a category 5 storm?
     
    Your vicious diatribes against the President are merely race-baiting, politically motivated claptrap. Why, Kanye? Why would you defile a fundraiser for hurricane victims by spouting such hateful nonsense? What did it solve? Did it ease the suffering of any of the hurricane victims? Did it bring in any more donations for them? Did it feed a hungry baby, or reunite a family? Couldn’t you have put your political posturing aside for a little while?
     
    What is it with these celebrities? Can’t they do something good for its own sake without twisting it into a tortured, withering assault on political opponents?

  • And then there’s this lovely story about a homeowner’s association in Ocala, Florida that got wind of some residents opening their homes to Katrina evacuees and promptly quashed these pernicious acts of kindness. The board posted notices on everybody’s door stating that such charity was strictly forbidden by the association’s charter. The president of the association, Bob Watson, said he felt “damn bad” about having to send out the notices, but also said he has a “legal responsibility to enforce the deed restrictions.” You know what I say, Mr. Watson? Every resident of Majestic Oaks that cares more about their precious charter than helping Katrina victims is an absolute disgrace, and they ought to burn hotly with deep and abiding shame and embarrassment at their odious greed and hard-heartedness. Pure and simple. Any homeowners association charter that prevents such charity deserves to be torn to shreds and burned with extreme prejudice. As long as homeowners associations are havens for people who take special pleasure and delight in legalistic, controlling behavior, The MonT-SteR will NEVER live in a community that’s governed by one. PERIOD.

They say that disasters like Katrina bring out the best and the worst in people. I have to agree.

Blessings,

Rob
aka The MonT-SteR

in Current Events, Issues, Politics, Theology

, ,

Read More
1 2 3 4

Latest Tweets

Javascript needs to be installed to view the twitterfeed. Get Javacript