John Warren’s blog

t the heart of biblical faith is an awesome story.
An infinite, eternally existing, all-powerful God chose in love to create a finite but beautiful world I full of astounding complex-I ity and stunning splendor. At the center of everything, God placed man and woman, fashioned in God's very image, to exercise servant-like stewardship over the rest of His handiwork. God designed them to find great delight in each other, in the material world enfolding them, and in the complex cultures God invited them to craft from the materials He entrusted to their care. But the Creator shaped them in such a way that their deepest joy and lasting happiness could come only from right relationship with and willing worship of their Maker.
Tragically, they rebelled. They chose to write their own rules rather than follow God's design. The results were selfish persons, twisted social relationships and institutions, and even a groaning, disordered creation.
But God loved this world far too much to abandon it to a descending spiral of chaotic evil. So the Creator began a long history of saving action to restore a right relationship among Himself, persons, and creation.
Over the centuries, many Christians have emphasized the political implications of one or another aspect of
this story. Those who focused on creation tended to be optimistic about improving society through politics. Those who emphasized the fall were more pessimistic. It is not wrong to find special insight for one's particular historical setting in specific biblical passages and themes. But we must be careful to allow the full biblical story, centered on Jesus Christ, to provide the overarching framework.
The full biblical story—creation, fall, salvation history centered on Christ, and the final restoration of all things—is chock-full of significance for Christian political engagement today. The story provides the foundation for understanding the nature and grand-ness of creation, the dignity and destiny of persons, the depth of sinful brokenness, the importance of history, and the glorious destiny to which God invites us all.

The follow is a story from a liberal turned conservative. It is a fact that can happen and has happened to many people. The fact of the matter is that one day the person wakes up and sees the light. Or better yet the light bulb goes on. The Liberals want you to believe that the world is a certain way and that they are the only way out of the problem when in fact they are the problem.

This week, yet another Leftist icon, David Mamet, announced he is coming to his senses.

Mamet is a Tony- and Oscar-nominated playwright, screenwriter and film director. His notable plays include Glengarry Glen Ross, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1984, and Speed-the-Plow. His films include The Verdict, Wag the Dog, The Postman Always Rings Twice and Ronin (a personal favorite). He currently writes for and produces the television show “The Unit.”

As an author and essayist, he has accrued a large and loyal following among the Leftist glitterati.

Mamet chose to “come out” with an op-ed published by Norman Mailer’s rag, The Village Voice, entitled, “Why I am no longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal’,” in which he outlines, in some detail, his migration from the Left.

Mamet opens his essay with a quote from macro economist John Maynard Keynes, who responded to a challenge about his changing views, saying, “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?”

You may recall that Keynes, whose early 20th century writings advocated the “New Deal” socialist economic policies still embraced by Democrats, was roundly criticized for adjusting his economic opinion after free market economist Friedrich von Hayek critiqued Keynes’ 1930 Treatise on Money. In fact, after reading Hayek’s seminal condemnation of socialism, The Road to Serfdom, Keynes proclaimed, “Morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it: and not only in agreement with it, but in deeply moved agreement.” (Apparently, Demos did not get the memo.)

According to Mamet, his own transformation began when he “wrote a play about politics, and as part of the ‘writing process,’ I started thinking about politics.” Now there’s a novel concept for Leftist politicos, actually “thinking about politics.”

He notes that central to Leftist thinking is the precept that so much is wrong with America, and responds, “This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong... I took the liberal view for many decades,” says Mamet, “but I believe I have changed my mind.”

Mamet continues, “In my life, a brief review revealed, everything was not always wrong, and neither was nor is always wrong in the community in which I live, or in my country. Further, it was not always wrong in previous communities in which I lived, and among the various and mobile classes of which I was at various times a part. And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that everything was always wrong... We in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.”

Mamet contrasts current criticisms of President George Bush with the Left’s most revered protagonist, John F. Kennedy: “Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia.”

On capitalism: “Oh, and I began to question my hatred for ‘the Corporations,’ the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.”

On the military: “And I began to question my distrust of the ‘Bad, Bad Military’ of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world.”

On the Left’s relentless classist rhetoric: “Classes in the United States are mobile, not static, which is the Marxist view. That is: Immigrants came and continue to come here penniless and can (and do) become rich; the nerd makes a trillion dollars; the single mother, penniless and ignorant of English, sends her two sons to college (my grandmother). On the other hand, the rich and the children of the rich can go belly-up; the hegemony of the railroads is appropriated by the airlines, that of the networks by the Internet; and the individual may and probably will change status more than once within his lifetime.”

On the freedom to think: “Prior to the midterm elections, my rabbi was taking a lot of flack. The congregation is exclusively liberal, he is a self-described independent (read ‘conservative’), and he was driving the flock wild. Why? Because a) he never discussed politics; and b) he taught that the quality of political discourse must be addressed first—that Jewish law teaches that it is incumbent upon each person to hear the other fellow out. I, like many of the liberal congregation, began, teeth grinding, to attempt to do so. And in doing so, I recognized that I held two views of America (politics, government, corporations, the military). One was of a state where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other—the world in which I actually functioned day to day—was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting).”

He concludes, “I realized that the time had come for me to avow my participation in that America in which I chose to live, and that that country was not a schoolroom teaching values, but a marketplace. I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.”

Predictably, some of Mamet’s former colleagues and devotees among the ever-tolerant and inclusive ranks of mindless tin men, were quick to condemn Mamet for his changing views: “How sad that an intelligent person like David would write such a simplistic, downright infantile article filled with stereotypes and lacking any substantive insight whatsoever.” “Does this mean that you’ve given up on democracy and thrown in with the authoritarians?” “I had no idea Mamet could be so shallow.” “Mr. Mamet is now simply brain dead.” “I’m saddened to learn David is either a liar or a fool or both.” “Mamet is a political ignoramus who hides his frustration by lashing out at an imagined ‘liberalism’.”

Notably, many of his Lefty critics mentioned Mamet’s faith: “Our old friend Mamet is perhaps too rich and too Jewish.” And more to the point: “It’s been apparent for quite some time that Mamet is a Zionist. This screed is just additional evidence.”

For his part, however, Mamet’s essay is courageous. He joins a long list of Leftists who have moved right, including such notables as David Horowitz, Chris Hitchens, Norm Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Nat Hentoff, Marvin Olasky, Bernard Goldberg and Evan Sayet—all of whom are persona non grata among their old colleagues.

There are also many Democrats who courageously switched political allegiance and became outspoken conservatives, including Charlton Heston, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Phil Gramm, Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Richard Shelby.

Of course, a onetime Democrat also became the 20th century’s greatest champion of conservative philosophy: Ronald Wilson Reagan.

President Reagan said, “I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.” To the millions of Americans who followed him to the Republican Party, he said, “I know what it’s like to pull the Republican lever for the first time, because I used to be a Democrat myself, and I can tell you it only hurts for a minute, and then it feels great.”

And a footnote: I can list countless Americans who have moved from the ideological Left to the Right, but I am hard pressed to name a single established conservative who has moved Left.

(http://archive.patriotpost.us/pub/08-11_Digest/index.php) by Mark Alexander

The follow website should make a persons blood boil. Pornography will destroy a family from the inside out. And it is very disrespectful to all who are involved.

Planned Parenthood Web Site Advises Teens on Porn Use
Penny Starr
(CNSNews.com) - Teenwire.com, the Planned Parenthood Web site that says it was created "to provide medically accurate sexual health information for teens on the Internet," is advising teens that viewing pornography is a normal and "safer" way of enjoying sex.

In a 2007 article, "Birth Control Choices for Teens," the writer for the Planned Parenthood site tells readers about "Outercourse."

Under the subtitle, "lower-risk forms of outercourse," in addition to kissing, masturbation, erotic massage and body rubbing, or frottage, is "fantasy."

"Many couples can read or watch sexy stories or pictures together," the article states. "They can also share or act out sex fantasies. People do it in person, on the phone, surfing the Internet or through e-mail instant messaging."

Another advice piece, "Porn vs. Reality," warns that federal law makes it illegal for anyone under 18 to view pornography, "however, not everyone follows the rules, and you may run across some porn before you turn 18. There are a few things you should know about the images you might see. First of all, many people enjoy pornography alone or with a partner as part of sex play. People have different ideas of what is arousing, and there are many different kinds of porn that appeal to people's different interests."

On the Web site's "Ask the Experts" page, young readers pose questions about pornography.

"Dear Experts," one young reader wrote, "I look at porno sites but I got all As for my subjects. People say looking at those sites affects your school work, but since I think I'm not affected, should I stop it? If I should, how?"

The answer given by teenwire.com experts includes the advice that "many people enjoy using pornography as a part of their sex play - alone or with a partner." And "there is no correlation between using pornography and getting bad grades in school."

The experts also told a young male viewer of pornography that masturbating while looking at pornography was not cheating on his girlfriend.

Repeated requests for interviews with Planned Parenthood and teenwire.com staff by Cybercast News Service were not answered.

Cybercast News Service sent links to these pages on teenwire.com to experts to ask if they thought the content on the Web site was "medically accurate," if it promoted the viewing of pornography by teens, and whether or not being exposed to sexually explicit material as a teenager or younger can be detrimental.

Cris Clapp, congressional liaison for Enough is Enough, a nonprofit group that works to protect children and families from online pornography, said the site sends the wrong message.

"Although teenwire.com does make the point that pornography is illegal in the United States for people under 18, and although the editors mention that some may struggle with compulsive access to this content, overall teenwire.com has painted a picture that pornography is harmless fun," Clapp told Cybercast News Service.

Clapp added that a recent study by the University of New Hampshire showed that 42 percent of Internet users ages 10 to 17 had seen porn over the course of a year. Also, pornography online goes far beyond the stereotypical Playboy or Penthouse type images to include graphic content, including virtual sex parties and violent sexual images, she said.

Clapp cited the testimony before Congress on Nov. 10, 2005, of Jill Manning, author and marriage and family therapist.

"Children and adolescents are considered the most vulnerable audience of sexually explicit material," Manning testified.

"Youth are considered a vulnerable audience because they: (a) can be easily coerced into viewing pornography or manipulated into the production of it; (b) have limited ability to emotionally, cognitively, and physiologically process obscene material they encounter voluntarily or involuntarily; (c) can be the victims of another's pornography consumption in ways adults are often more resilient to; (d) can have their sexual and social development negatively impacted through exposure to fraudulent and/or traumatic messages regarding sexuality and relationships; and (e) can develop unrealistic expectations about their future sexual relationship through repeated exposure to fantasy-based templates. For these reasons and others, it is illegal to knowingly display or distribute obscenity or pornography defined as harmful to minors," she testified.

"However, this legal reality is rapidly losing momentum as widespread availability and accessibility of pornography normalizes illegal exposure," she added.

Access to teenwire.com only requires anonymous registration for some of the interactive parts of its site, but most content can be accessed by any user of any age.

Robert Weiss, executive director of The Sexual Recovery Institute in Los Angeles, told Cybercast News Service that while the medical content on teenwire.com is accurate, it is vague in other important issues.

"The information in the link, while accurate, could do more to address how the viewing of erotic material can affect intimacy and relationships," Weiss told Cybercast News Service, adding that if teens looking at the site have younger siblings, children much younger than 13 could gain access to the site.

Weiss also said his answer to the teen concerned about cheating on his girlfriend while masturbating and viewing pornography would not be the same as the one teenwire.com experts gave.

"Yes, it's cheating if it is a secret hidden from your partner," he said. "Especially if it takes time, emotional energy, and sensuality away from an intimate relationship and the other person doesn't know why or what is going on."

Perhaps the most dramatic case of the damage pornography can apparently cause to some individuals was revealed when James Dobson of Focus on the Family, a conservative Christina group, met with serial killer Ted Bundy the day before he was executed on Jan. 24, 1989.

Bundy, who killed at least 28 females, including the 12-year-old girl whose death led to his arrest and conviction, requested the interview with Dobson.

"As a young boy of 12 or 13, I encountered, outside the home, in the local grocery and drug stores, soft core pornography," Bundy told Dobson, adding that "the most damaging kind of pornography - and I'm talking from hard, real, personal experience - is that that involves violence and sexual violence. The wedding of those two forces - as I know only too well - brings about behavior that is too terrible to describe."

Bundy said he didn't blame pornography and took full responsibility for the brutal rape and murder of more than two dozen women, but he said it is a contributing factor that caused him and other violent offenders' to act out.

"I'm no social scientist," Bundy said, "and I don't pretend to believe what John Q. Citizen thinks about this, but I've lived in prison for a long time now, and I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence. Without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography - deeply consumed by the addiction."

Victor Cline, a psychoanalyst and professor emeritus at the University of Utah, said in a 1999 paper, "Treatment and Healing of Pornographic and Sexual Addictions," that, "In over 25 years I have treated approximately 350 males afflicted with sexual addictions (sometimes referred to as: sexual compulsions).

"In about 94 percent of the cases I have found that pornography was a contributor, facilitator or direct causal agent in the acquiring of these sexual illnesses," he wrote.

"Patrick Carnes, the leading U.S. researcher in this area, also reports similar findings. In his research on nearly 1,000 sex addicts as reported in his 'Don 't Call it Love,' he stated: 'Among all addicts surveyed 90 percent of the men and 77 percent of the women reported pornography as significant to their addiction," Cline added.

In its explanation of its purpose and mission, teenwire.com experts say they encourage parents to get involved in their children's sex education but that they know how difficult it can be for parents to talk to kids about sexual matters.

Clapp said parents are making a big mistake.

"Unfortunately, parents are outsourcing their responsibility to talk to their kids about healthy sexuality to teachers, the culture and sites like teenwire.com, without any understanding about the sort of misguided messages that our children are hearing," she added.

Make media inquiries or request an interview about this article.

E-mail a comment or news tip to Penny Starr

Find this article at: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11569167/