Howie Luvzus

Took the young one to Brechtel Park today for her first fishing trip. She almost caught a huge carp or alligator gar or something. It was pretty scary!

We also saw a rabbit.

You can see the other pics here:

AP is reporting:

Dunkin’ Donuts has pulled an online advertisement featuring Rachael Ray after complaints that a fringed black-and-white scarf that the celebrity chef wore in the ad offers symbolic support for Muslim extremism and terrorism.

The coffee and baked goods chain said the ad that began appearing online May 7 was pulled over the past weekend because “the possibility of misperception detracted from its original intention to promote our iced coffee.”

In the spot, Ray holds an iced coffee while standing in front of trees with pink blossoms.

Critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf wrapped around her looked like a kaffiyeh, the traditional Arab headdress. Critics who fueled online complaints about the ad in blogs say such scarves have come to symbolize Muslim extremism and terrorism.

Is Rachael Ray annoying? Yep. A terrorist? Give me a friggin’ break! Ashley Morris referred to her as Gatemouth. Oh by the way, Spam sales are up. The End must be near.

Man, I wish I was this committed to freedom. Unfortunately with two kids in college, I can’t use my Stimulant Check to advance freedom like this guy. He’s a real patriot!

I’ve never understood why someone who believes homosexuality is a sin must oppose same-sex marriage. I’ve also never really bought the conservative Christian line that same-sex marriage is a threat to our country. I have gay friends and they really don’t threaten me or my family or anyone else for that matter. I’m kind of shallow so I always assumed that conservative Christians oppose same-sex marriage because they either don’t want to question their own sexuality or they are simply “creeped out” by homosexuality.

Nick Street offers another reason in “It’s the Spiritual Economy, Stupid: Why the Gay Marriage Fracas isn’t About Either” and I think he’s on to something. Street argues that the battle is really about the importance of Scripture, particularly the more literal interpretation of Scripture. Of course, conservative Christians can’t really openly argue that so they have to keep that idea in the closet. Here’s a bit of Street’s argument…

Well, the impulse behind the movement’s anti-gay activism doesn’t really have much to do with marriage and sexuality. No one on the religious right has argued—or is likely to argue—that the success or failure of Jenna Bush’s marriage really hinges on whether lesbians and gay men are allowed to tie the knot on the courthouse steps in San Francisco.

The real issues are the authority of the Bible and the nature of revelation.

Recent polls show that while roughly two-thirds of Americans believe that Noah’s flood, the creation story and other biblical events are literally true, only about 40 percent of those surveyed accept the Bible as completely inerrant—a figure declining at about the rate that public acceptance of gays and lesbians is increasing.

So a lot is at stake in a political initiative with deep roots in the foundations of canonical Christianity. If religious conservatives can’t persuade a majority of Californians to heed one element in an otherwise obscure list of purity codes in Deuteronomy—and that Jesus’ preaching in the gospels isn’t really complete without Paul’s finger-wagging in Romans—the stitching that holds together the disparate parts of the Good Book will have subtly but irrevocably loosened, along with the Bible’s centuries-old grip on American public life.

Pretty interesting argument. If it’s true, it shows that conservative Christians aren’t being totally honest.

One of my favorite quotes from “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” :

“History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation[of being biased against Bush]. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

“One of the worst disasters in our nation’s history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush’s presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush’s second term,” he writes. “And the perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath.”

The whole story can be found here.

Another sign Conservative Christians in America are stupid. I’m sure Jesus would find assassination funny too!

Warning…this is a rant. I’m really ticked so there might be a few offensive phrases. See the picture on this post? It’s Jesus with the woman at the well. She was a Samaritan woman. Jews hated Samaritans. Jesus didn’t. He saw her as a human being. God’s kind of like that. You know, loving, not a racist, etc.

I’m flippin’ sick and tired of so called Christians making negative comments about “those Mexicans.” Five words: shut up you flippin’ moron! Read your Bible. Think a bit. Would Jesus be pissed about them coming here to “our” country? I don’t think so. In fact I know he wouldn’t. He’d tell you alleged Christians that you must, Jeez I know this will be a shock, love your neighbor. OK, they’re taking our jobs and costing us lots of money for providing their children with healthcare and education (Why is it that I usually hear this from old retired farts who don’t work anyway?) Let’s just pretend that these “Mexicans” are costing us lots of money and are our enemies.

Guess what? Take a look at your dusty old Bible again! Jesus says we’re supposed to love our enemies. Holy Crap! What to do? Why don’t you shut the heck up, think for a freakin’ minute, turn off Fox News and read the Gospels. Out loud. It’s really not that complex. Do you honestly believe that Jesus would be pissed about providing heathcare for children? We’re one of the richest countries in the world. If we really are a Christian nation (which we’re not) we should be glad to help those in need and not just those who have oil under them and are in need.

Why can’t you ignorant racist bigots realize that your ancestors were probably immigrants too? Of course that really shouldn’t matter if you’re a Christian because you’re supposed to LOVE them anyway. They are children of God, whether you like it or not. Their children are human-freaking-beings created in the image of God! Love them too!

In case you forgot. The Christian’s primary citizenry is the KINGDOM OF GOD not the United States. I know that makes me sound unpatriotic, but if I’ve got to chose someone or something to be obedient to it’s going to be Jesus. Not George Bush, that Hussein Obama guy you like to trash and certainly not that foul mouthed old fart that called his wife the “c” word. If following Jesus hurts the American economy then so be it. If it means I might have to, God forbid, make sacrifices like spending more money on others and less on myself I’ll gladly do it. Jesus’ sacrifice makes anything I do seem a bit lame anyway.

Sorry to break the news to you. If you’re going to follow Jesus, you’re going to have to love those “Mexicans” just like he does. If you’d like the scripture references email me at howie (dot) luvzus (at) gmail (dot) com. I didn’t provide them here because I didn’t want to waste your time and they should be a given anyway.

I wrote this because I love those “Mexicans” and hate to hear you trash them. They’re my brothers and sisters. I also wrote this because I love you too and it pains me to see you miss out on the opportunity to demonstrate God’s love to someone in need.

Now shut up and follow Jesus, you maroons!

I remember the good old days in the Southern Baptist Convention. Although many of the moderate professors were rude and condescending toward fundamentalists, the tone of the SBC was a lot less negative in general. You can see that in the resolutions at the conventions prior to the Fundamentalist Takeover in 1979.

Foy Valentine, when asked if Southern Baptists considered themselves Evangelicals, said emphatically that “we don’t share their politics or their fussy fundamentalism.” He also condemned their “theological witch-hunts.” Ah, the good old days!

Recently, an Evangelical Manifesto was composed and signed by such Evangelical greats as, Mark Noll, Alvin Plantinga, Daniel L. Akin, Kay Arthur, Max Lucado, and Jim Wallace. There are many Southern Baptist pastors that also signed on.

However, Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was critical of the document. Surprise, surprise. Mohler is about the most negative commentator, other than me, that I’ve ever read. Here’s a brief summary of his concerns:

1. Al says it doesn’t condemn non-Christians enough!

“it leaves out the question of the exclusivity of salvation to those who have come to Christ by faith.” Al wants to make damn sure that any group he supports makes it very clear that certain folks (probably lots) are going to hell! This statement wasn’t clear enough for Al: “the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life ‘from above.’”

2. Al also isn’t satisfied that Evangelicals don’t condemn other Christians!

Al writes, “Another complication on this score comes from the fact that Evangelicals are identified as ‘one of the great traditions that have developed within the Christian Church over the centuries.’ There is a sense in which this is true, of course, but relegating the Evangelical understanding of the Gospel to just one among many Christian traditions undercuts our witness and sows seeds of confusion.”

God forbid that someone might confuse an Evangelical with one of the pagan streams within Christianity!

3. Al says it’s not negative enough!

He writes, “Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments, the authors assert, but only after clarifying that the “Good News” of the Gospel “is overwhelmingly positive, and is always positive before it is negative.” Further: “Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything.”
This is a wonderful statement, and entirely true. Nevertheless, as a statement of public relations it will not get very far — not if any honest discussion or disclosure follows. As the authors recognize, to be for one principle is to oppose its opposite. Those holding to contrary principles will not be persuaded to cease stating that we are against their principles and aims.”

4. Al says civility is overrated!

Al asks, “Where does a commitment to civility meet its limits? Can one speak truthfully of the Gospel, and of the fact that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation, and be considered civil?”

Nope. Southern Baptists still aren’t Evangelicals. Unfortunately now that folks like Mohler are “in charge,” those fussy fundamentalists are too nice, civil, and liberal!

« Previous entries