Daily Archives: March 24, 2006

One Year Bible Blog: March 24th readings

Posted on by
Reply

One Year Bible Blog: March 24th readings

Psalm 67:1-2

Like many other psalms, this one asks for the blessings of God. What I think is important, though, is the motivation for asking. It is not for the comfort of Israel. Rather, it is so that the entire Earth can see the grace, mercy, and power of God.

I get upset with those who preach that prosperity is a sign of God’s favor, and hard times an indication of God’s anger. As if “living the good life” is the God-given right of every believer. I don’t believe that. I do believe that, in whatever circumstance we find ourselves, we can use it so “that [God's] way may be known upon earth, [God's] saving power among all nations.” (NRSV)

Which dovetails nicely into Luke 6:20-26, when Jesus tell his disciples that they are blessed for the trials they endure for his sake. The text talks about heavenly rewards, but I think it’s also that those rewards will mean all the more, because of the earlier pain. I have never been truly hungry, so I don’t fully appreciate the blessing of being full. Even the (very few) times I’ve fasted, I’ve always known it would be ending at such-and-such time, and was under my control.

Share

The next round in “Bush vs the Constitution”

Posted on by
Reply

President’s Statement on H.R. 199, the “USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005″

(Thanks to The Carpetbagger Report for pointing this out)

According to this official statement on the White House’s web site, Bush gladly signed the new Patriot Act into law. However, he also claims that, basically, he doesn’t have to follow the parts he doesn’t like (the reporting and accountability components), claiming, basically, executive privledge. He doesn’t have to follow the parts that he deems to interfere with his constitutional duties.

Was he talking to the same lawyers who told him he could ignore FISA when he chose to?

Actually, maybe this is a good thing. If Bush is claiming that some aspects of the law are constitutionally unenforcable, maybe it’s time for a challenge to it in the Supreme Court. Then, either the president loses, and he has to follow the whole law, or he wins, and the law is struck down as unconstitutional.
Hmm. That has potential. ;)

Share

Warning – pet peeve rant ahead

Posted on by
1

Chron.com | Katrina funds earmarked to pay for Neil Bush’s software program

It has always bugged me when people make a charitable “gift” with strings attached. If you’re still controlling it, then it’s not a gift. It’s a bribe. An attempt to control the “receiving” organization. If you’re going to give a gift, then give it. Don’t use it as bait to get what you want. Even if “all you want” is recognition.

Continue reading →

Share