Blogcritics Author: Mark Adams

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Is Fred Phelps a Pornographer?

Mark Adams — Sat, 3 Jun 2006 11:59:36 EDT

I have a confession to make: I've joined the fray of "God Hates Fags" parody sites (see link toward end of article). Perhaps I have too much time on my hands, but what's done is done. When I began this project, I did not know what variety of things God hates. Did you know that God also hates... 1. Figs -- boy, that's rough 2. Globes -- this is a parody site, right? 3. Pork -- a Jewish, G*d hates... site 4. Shrimp -- I don't have anything more to say about that 5. Christians, er, Christians? -- Gee, is nothing sacred? (I like how the webmaster notes that "this site has nothing to do with Fred Phelps or Westboro Baptist Church;" no, really?)When you hate everything and everyone as Phelps does, you're bound to make a few enemies. That one can spur on such a flurry of parody sites speaks volumes to the enmity between Phelps and, well, the rest of the world. It also stands as a tribute to free speech and the value of the Internet. The same medium that gives Phelps a worldwide audience offers the rest of us a chance to get back. You can't reason with these people, but you can poke fun at them.Back in my college days, a guy named Billy Bible brought the gospel of belligerence to San Jose State University. He'd stand in the student center shouting that God hates everyone and everything, and he'd single out individual students as sinners. A guy wearing a bandanna? A homosexual. A girl wearing a pair of shorts? A harlot. As the president of a Christian club at San Jose State, I was asked one day to go out and confront Billy Bible.First, I approached him in a friendly manner, only to learn I was part of the problem. According to Billy Bible, I needed to tell people they were sinners (real gospel preaching, he said). Later on, he tried to run me down because we "chased" him off the campus shouting, "Loud clanging gong!" (a reference to St. Paul's message on love in 1 Corinthians 13). I walked away knowing one thing for sure: You can't reason with a jerk. But you can poke fun at him.The inspiration behind my parody site, Fred Phelps is a Pornographer, is a comment I made in another one of my Blogcritic entries.I noticed, some time ago actually, that godhatesfags.com (how I hate typing those words) displays a stick-figure image of two men engaged in sex. At first, I found the depiction offensive. Then, I found it ironic. After all, isn't Phelps an opponent of everything unholy? Followers of Phelps display this image at funerals and post it all over their websites. On the priestsrapeboys.com site, the Westboro "church" displays an image of... I don't even know how to describe it tastefully... let's just say two priests are abusing a boy. That's not only ironic, but it's offensive and possibly illegal. (I'm not a lawyer; so don't quote me on that last part.)Based on these observations, I asked how one could follow Fred Phelps, a known pornographer. I thought the remark quite clever. An avowed supporter of Phelps answered back feebly that it was only a stick-figure depiction. Only.So my parody site is only half in jest. My tongue is not in my cheek... it's sticking out at Phelps in plain view.

I maintain a religious issues blog at Agabus.com, focusing on issues of church history and doctrine, and also social issues and concerns. I am youth pastor at Mountain Bible Church.

Congress Votes to Limit Hate Speech

Mark Adams — Fri, 26 May 2006 03:07:58 EDT

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. -- VoltaireCongress has amended this famous statement to read, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it from a distance," in a bill designed to keep a Kentucky "church" group from protesting at military funerals. The group, led by hatemonger Fred Phelps, claims military deaths are divine retribution for America's tolerance of homosexuality. Showing up at military funerals, the group displays signs reading, "Thank God for 9-11" and other such despicable things. Congress's action is regrettable but necessary.Normally, I chafe at First Amendment restrictions, but not in this case. In the marketplace of ideas, everyone gets to express what he or she thinks. Speech that violates another person's sensibilities is subject to the censure of his or her peers, but not censorship. The Fred Phelps group demonstrates the limit of this idea. The deplorable words of the Phelps group will ultimately elicit physical censure. Their speech goes so far beyond what is acceptable that it ought to be barred at military funerals, and perhaps the funerals of ordinary gay people too. It's just not decent.Already, counter protests have sprung up. The Patriot Guard Riders show up in droves whenever a Phelps protest is suspected. Hundreds of motorcycle riders form a screen, protecting families from the protesters (see related article in The Hutchinson News). According to a Fox report, some counter protesters have already attacked the Phelps group, underscoring the need for congressional action.The "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act" will bar protests within 300 feet of the entrance of a cemetery and within 150 feet of a road into the cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral, notes a Washington Post article. Violators would face up to a $100,000 fine and up to a year in prison."It's a sad but necessary measure to protect what should be recognized by all reasonable people as a solemn, private and deeply sacred occasion," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn, cited in the Washington Post article.Regarding a Kentucky law, which the American Civil Liberties Union says goes too far in restricting speech, Fred Phelps has much to say, but none of it intelligent. I checked out his website, which I will not name here, and listened to one of his sermons. It's so full of common vulgarity that I'm reluctant to call it a sermon. Absent any rational application of scripture, Phelps rages about how the government is restricting his free speech. At points yelling, Phelps seems more a figure from a Stephen King novel than a preacher. What remains of his rhetoric fails to convince. He wants the right to hate (here I think he would even agree with my characterization of his efforts) and will push his views to whatever extreme he finds possible.Placing limits on speech is dangerous, no doubt, but there are some "freedoms" I'm willing to give up.

I maintain a religious issues blog at Agabus.com, focusing on issues of church history and doctrine, and also social issues and concerns. I am youth pastor at Mountain Bible Church.

Automakers Hype the Hybrid

Mark Adams — Fri, 26 May 2006 02:30:59 EDT

A recent Newsweek article noted that sales of Honda Accord hybrids dropped 69 percent in April, while sales of the Cadillac Escalade increased 127 percent. That comparison is misleading. The Accord has poor sales because it has poor fuel economy for a hybrid. (The Escalade is fodder for another rant.) Automakers are producing an entire class of hybrids that calls into question the application of this technology.Consider these figures (from the manufacturer):2006 Honda Accord Hybrid -- 25 mpg city/34 mpg highway 2006 Honda Accord LX/EX (non-hybrid) -- 24 mpg city/34 mpg highway Am I missing something here? The difference between the regular Accord and the hybrid is almost $10,000. There's little difference in fuel economy. No wonder sales of the Accord are dipping. The advantages are minimal, though hybrids do cut down on emissions, which is important to the automaker who must meet pollution targets set by the EPA. How this benefits the consumer is unclear.The civic-minded Civic hybrid offers real fuel economy: 49 mpg city/51 mpg highway. The regular, less fuel-efficient Civic is $6,000 cheaper. That's a lot of moolah. How many tanks could you fill for six grand?We can argue over these figures (some owners claim much higher fuel savings; however, some diesel owners claim similar savings). I'm simply using the manufacturer's specs to make a point: hybrids offer limited benefits.The Ford 2007 Escape Hybrid boasts 36 mpg city/31 mpg highway (front-wheel drive) and 32 mpg city/29 mpg highway (four-wheel drive). The regular model is in the low 20s for each, about a 10 mpg difference. But according to Kelly Blue Book, you can find a model that gets 24 mpg city/29 mpg highway. Again, it seems there isn't much to distinguish the hybrid from the regular model.I don't want to compare apples to oranges. Some models have more power or larger towing capacities, but I have found that for the typical, fuel-conscious driver, even that's not important. I opted for a 4-cylinder Toyota Camry over the more powerful V6 simply to save on gas. It doesn't have the kick of a V6, but at cruising speeds, it's equal. If I wanted a sports car, I would have purchased a Corvette.Toyota plots a different course, producing authentically economical hybrids. The new 2007 Camry Hybrid offers 40 mpg city/38 mpg highway versus the 4-cylinder model at 24 mpg city/34 mpg highway, though even here, the consumer will have to consider if an $8,000 increase in price is worthwhile.As gas prices rise, the extra money spent on a hybrid could cover the difference, giving one a warm, fuzzy feeling about saving the world a few hundred gallons of gas and some pollution. However, Keith Naughton, in another of his articles for Newsweek, notes that for Ford Escape Hybrid owners it would take "8.8 years to see that payoff at the pump," citing an Edmunds.com report. He adds that you'd have to drive the Honda Accord Hybrid for 12.6 years. If prices jump to $4 or even $5, the payoff comes exponentially. Still, when traditional combustible engines offer similarly good fuel economy, why not opt for that?I get about 440 miles on a tank of gas, driving a 2005 Camry, four cylinder model. If I add 15 gallons per fill-up, that comes to about 29 mpg. These figures aren't precise, but they are consistent. I couldn't justify owning a hybrid model, as the "reported" fuel economies aren't substantial. That's the dilemma facing most consumers: being green costs too much, and, in the end, you really aren't much greener.The king (or queen) of hybrids is the Toyota Prius. Mileage estimates are 60 mpg city/51 mpg highway or 55 mpg combined. That's real fuel economy. If you commute great distances, the payoff can be measured in months, according to one of my neighbors who drives 80 miles per day. Even my landlord finds it worthwhile, though he only drives short distances.In one sense, it comes down to values. Regardless of model, hybrids pollute less and use less fuel, but the consumer pays a premium for these benefits. I'll wait for the Cadillac Escalade hybrid.

I maintain a religious issues blog at Agabus.com, focusing on issues of church history and doctrine, and also social issues and concerns. I am youth pastor at Mountain Bible Church.

It's Time To Kill Your Television

Mark Adams — Wed, 24 May 2006 21:31:32 EDT

Outside was a world of adventure, but we wouldn't have known it had not mom shouted, "Go outside and play." When I was younger, mom rationed television time. If she was away from the living room, she'd feel the TV for warmth to see if my brother or I snuck a few extra shows.By the time I was five, mom bought Let's Read, a reading program like Hooked on Phonics only without the hook. Every afternoon in the family room, my mother and I sat reading from that book, and I learned to read in six months. My first grade teacher had to create a special reading group for me and my buddy Ricky, whose mother was in cahoots with mine, because we were the only kids in the class who could actually read. The teacher wasn't prepared for that.Today, most students aren't prepared for middle school or high school - or, worse yet, college. "More than 8 million U.S. students in grades 4-12 struggle to read, write, and comprehend adequately," writes Carol Guensburg for edutopioa. "Only three out of ten eighth graders read at or above grade level, according to the 2004 National Assessment of Educational Progress."At a school I worked at a few years back, 70 percent of our high school students read at or below the fifth-grade level. In random surveys of my students, the average student read maybe one book per year, not counting the school texts, which many did not read either. Only a few expressed frustration at not being good readers. The rest simply acquiesced to their illiteracy.Like Orwell describes in 1984, the great masses will be content in their illiteracy for they will be entertained. What Orwell imagined were machines that could produce trite pop songs and pulp-fiction novels that would satiate the masses. It did not matter what they watched or read, as long as they were still functionally illiterate.Orwell's prophetic fiction is the non-fiction material of today's news reports. The edutopia article, "Why Johnny (Still) Can't Read," gets the facts straight, but misses in the headline. It should read, "Why Johnny Won't Read -- He's Watching TV." A recent Associated Press report states that one-third of the nation's youngest children are "glued to the tube." This isn't a mere exaggeration. Our children are so fixated on television, the Internet, cell phones, and video games, they've formed addictions (see report). According to the study, eight of ten children under six watch two hours of television per day. That's 14 hours of TV a week folks. Much of that is "educational" no doubt, but that's hardly a mitigating factor. Other studies indicate that television of any type may increase hyperactivity in children. The primary concerns are that television is mostly a passive activity (though educational shows are bit more engaging and therefore less damaging) and that television stimulates sensory perception but not mental ability.I won't moralize, but let's be brutally honest: we're killing ourselves with entertainment. No less a prophet of the ages, Kurt Corbain of Nirvana, wrote:With the lights out it's less dangerous Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious Here we are now Entertain usWell?

I maintain a religious issues blog at Agabus.com, focusing on issues of church history and doctrine, and also social issues and concerns. I am youth pastor at Mountain Bible Church.

Madonna's Cross to Bear: Lack of Artistry

Mark Adams — Wed, 24 May 2006 21:00:00 EDT

So Madonna's nailed herself to a cross. Well, not actually nailed herself to a cross, she just sort of hangs around while images of impoverished children are flashed on a screen. Not since what's-his-face pissed in a jar has such a pathetic use of a religious icon been made. A few churches are outraged, but, seriously, folks, can this be taken... er, seriously? It's hard to be outraged and laugh at the same time.A reviewer for the Daily Mail in England, where Madonna has begun to tour, sums it up succinctly: "The world's most famous 47-year-old took to the stage, a mere 50 minutes late, determined to prove to all those willing to listen - and pay up to �200 a ticket - that she still had the ability to grab headlines." But is it art?Back in junior high the "mods" actually liked Madonna. She looked like Marilyn Monroe, and she was burning up for the teenage species. There was something very retro about Madonna that seemed to obscure that she was really only a pop-star wannabe willing to do anything to get there. By the seventh grade (this was back in the 1980s), she was the boy toy, and by then the "mods" had given her up as a pop star. Nothing to see, really. Move on. She's been blazing the charts for decades, putting out one contrived hit single of self-importance after another all in the name of art. But I don't believe her.She's a mom and one would think it would it would add a little credibility to her name, but it hasn't. She's found religion, Kabbalism, and one would think it would add some depth to her performance, but it hasn't.The Daily Mail's critic noted, "'There's light even in the darkest places flashed up on screen - which was nice enough, even if it sat oddly with her previously stated message to 'turn the world into one big dance floor.'" I'm left wondering if I'm supposed to take her seriously.There's a line in a U2 song, "Hold Me, Kiss Me, Thrill Me, Kill Me," which best sums up my incredulity: "They don't know what you're doing/Babe, it must be art."I can accept religious parody as art, but who's she parodying? The church or Madonna? I'm going with the latter.To tell the truth, I haven't gotten such a good laugh from a mock crucifixion since the Young Ones, when Rick "nailed" himself to a cross to prevent the college from demolishing his apartment. That was art: Rick, "nailed" to a cross as the wrecking ball bashes in around him.Looks a lot like Madonna's career.

I maintain a religious issues blog at Agabus.com, focusing on issues of church history and doctrine, and also social issues and concerns. I am youth pastor at Mountain Bible Church.

TV News: And That's The Way It Is... Oh, Well

Mark Adams — Thu, 11 May 2006 18:18:18 EDT

"A traumatic start to the day... when dozens of baby birds are dropped from the second floor, many to their death..."The reason I don't watch network or cable TV has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias. It's that television has become so painfully inane.Case in point: over the winter break (I'm a teacher), I traveled to Portland to see U2 perform at the Rose Garden. I reveled in the opportunity to sit in my hotel room and watch a bit of the news. I don't have a TV at home, so on vacation I tend to splurge.There I am, watching an interview with a congressman, listening to him talk about the war in Iraq. Suddenly, the interviewer says they have to cut away to breaking news in Houston. The breaking news? An apartment fire. I strained to see what was so remarkable about it. From my vantage, all I could see were a few puffs of smoke.Charles Foster Kane ("Citizen Kane") once said the news is big if you make the headline big enough. Point taken.I like to peruse the headlines at the Drudge Report. There's a guy who knows how to make a headline big enough. If you're looking for the latest big headline, no matter how unimportant the story, check out the Drudge Report. Today, Matt Drudge provided more fodder for my diatribe.Check out this report about 45 baby chicks getting tossed from a second-floor balcony. This is a classic piece of leading news:1. Dramatic, top-of-the-news plug 2. On-scene report 3. Multi-shot interview with horrified student 4. Interview with director of schools (zoom, zoom, zoom), cut to concerned reporter 5. Dramatic quote: "These kids formed a protective circle..." 5. Several cuts to cute, if not delectable, chicksWhat might have been a parody in another time, still manages to come off as ridiculous. Compounding its absurdity is the highly polished production of the segment. The incongruity of form and substance is almost beyond comment.So, I've taken to listening to National Public Radio, which has its absurd moments too, and watching BBC International news when I can. I'll take five minutes of unpolished, substantive news over thirty minutes of polished dribble any day.

I maintain a religious issues blog at Agabus.com, focusing on issues of church history and doctrine, and also social issues and concerns. I am youth pastor at Mountain Bible Church.

Is The Da Vinci Code Worth Boycotting or Banning?

Mark Adams — Thu, 11 May 2006 00:27:23 EDT

It's not often that I wrestle over whether to participate in a boycott or not. Usually, I'm not inclined. It's not that I'm apolitical, it's just that boycotts usually don't work. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a watershed, but to be honest, I ate a lot of grapes during the grape boycott. As for The Da Vinci Code, I'll pass on the movie. I did read the book, having organized a seminar about it, but I'll refrain from the movie and support the boycott. The movie's that offensive. Banning it is another thing altogether.Several bans have been proposed in several places. Some on religious grounds, some merely on the basis that it offends religion. The Catholic Church is upset, as is Opus Dei, a Catholic organization central to the tale of The Da Vinci Code. A ban might have grounds in some countries, but in America, it is quite antithetical to our democratic principles and, truthfully, unappealling to our masses.First, there is nothing to gain politically by even attempting to ban the movie. It is, after all, just a movie. Second, while it is blasphemous and insulting (both to Jews and Christians), the ideas presented in The Da Vinci Code are nothing new. The church has ably, through apologetics, defended its position. Modern Gnosticism, in the form of the New Age movement, is only a minority belief, and ancient Gnosticism only a memory. It does concern me that unsuspecting believers or seekers will be thrown off by the movie, but perhaps this presents an opportunity to engage the general public in our beliefs. At Mountain Bible Church in Los Gatos, California, I led two seminars on the novel and its claims. We also examined the creeds and the canon of the New Testament. It is more important to know what we believe and why we believe it than to overthrow the claims of The Da Vinci Code. Truth is self-evident.

I maintain a religious issues blog at Agabus.com, focusing on issues of church history and doctrine, and also social issues and concerns. I am youth pastor at Mountain Bible Church.

Mob Rule for Democracy?

Mark Adams — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:00:21 EDT

Pro-immigrant activists say they will "shut down" major cities to demand amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, according to a report in Reuters. Already troubling comparisons have been made to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Let's make a distinction: one movement strove for the equal rights of citizens; the other insists on the privilege of citizenship to illegal/undocumented (whichever you prefer) aliens. One movement worked within the framework of a democratic government; the other threatens to disrupt that government.While the civil rights movement of the 1960s gained much through sit-ins, marches and boycotts, it succeeded primarily in courts and in congress. Civil rights activists employed the law to combat lawlessness and employed reason to turn away hatred. The abolitionists of the previous century struggled with the idea that the government and its laws were beyond repair. Some argued for the overthrow of government, for the dissolution of the Union. Ultimately, in the likes of Frederick Douglass and others, they embraced the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They turned to the democratic processes, not away from it, and established the framework for future civil rights activity.Absent in the pro-immigration movement is the recognition of public discourse and the right of people to determine their own policies. The 10 to 11 million illegal aliens in America must respect the right of citizens to decide immigration policy, or else they will alienate mainstream America. Shutting down cities does little to increase public discourse, and unlike the civil rights movement of the 1960s, possesses none of the moral fortitude.America is not indifferent. Each year, the United States admits some 700,000 to 900,000 legal immigrants (source). All immigrants, regardless of their status, are given free healthcare, education and legal support. And polls show most Americans are not for draconian measures so often the targets of these protests.Disconnect between pro-immigrant activists and average Americans is woeful. While Spanish radio is doing an admirable job informing and engaging the Spanish market, how are they reaching the rest of America? Shutting down our cities does little to reach Middle America.

I maintain a religious issues blog at Agabus.com, focusing on issues of church history and doctrine, and also social issues and concerns. I am youth pastor at Mountain Bible Church.

Archaeologists Find Lost Gospel, Scholars Can't Locate Church

Mark Adams — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 18:05:07 EDT

The rediscovery of the Gospel of Judas, a Gnostic writing suggesting Judas did not betray Jesus but acted to free Jesus from his earthly form, has reignited debate over the nature and beliefs of early Christians. Scholars argue the text indicates a diversity of belief among early Christians, but that variety of church is illusory.Early Christians knew of the Gospel of Judas and rejected it. Irenaeus, writing in the second century, called it a fiction: They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas (Irenaeus I, 31, 1).That a Gnostic doctrine was widespread is self-evident. The apostle John railed against it in his writings to the churches, and historical works depict John as an ardent foe of Gnosticism. The apostle asserted that Jesus came "by water and blood" and not the water only (1 John 5:6), rebutting the Gnostic belief that Christ merely appeared at baptism, and fled the body before his crucifixion. To reject Christ's death and resurrection was antithetical to Christian belief, wrote John.Ancient Gnosticism was a conglomerate of religious beliefs that adopted Jesus as its prime figure. It preached salvation was through a secret knowledge, that physical forms were evil (e.g., the human body), and that only a select few could attain full salvation. Its leaders accepted some of the Christian scriptures, but mostly in redacted forms. Marcion received only some of Paul's writings and a revised Gospel of Luke. The Gnostic church almost universally rejected canonical gospels and Christian orthodoxy. It represented an entirely separate movement, a point lost on many scholars. The Rev. Donald Senior, president of the Catholic Theological Union of Chicago, in an MSNBC.com report states the Gospel of Judas "reveals the diversity and vitality of early Christianity. This diversity among various Christian groups was something taken for granted in the early centuries of the church, but may be a surprise to many people today," he said.An even greater surprise would be that any ancient church simultaneously encouraged and discouraged marital relations, celebrated and rejected the resurrection of the Lord, allowed and forbid the eating of meat, and accepted and tolerated every piece of writing concerning Jesus Christ. Senior's concept of "early Christianity" belies historical truth and abuses the notion of "diversity" as a catchall for a church that never existed.Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss; these scholars abuse truth with hype.

I maintain a religious issues blog at Agabus.com, focusing on issues of church history and doctrine, and also social issues and concerns. I am youth pastor at Mountain Bible Church.

I'm a Republican, and I'm mad as hell at Bush

Mark Adams — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:18:17 EDT

I can get a seven-night cruise to the Carrribean, leaving from Houston, for $499, through Expedia. It took me all of five seconds (yes, I really timed myself) to find this package. I suppose if I bothered to scroll down the page, or if I looked for discounts, I could have gotten a cheaper package.FEMA, in a desperate search for housing during the Rita-disaster-relief disaster, will pay $1,275 per week for cabins aboard three luxury liners. Defending a $236 million agreement with Carnival Cruise Lines, government officials claim that is the market price for cabin space.What the hell is that? If I can find a cabin for $499 on a ship that moves and will provide entertainment, can't the government find a better deal?Worse still, the cruise ships are half empty.Truly, there is a lot of blame to go around regarding the fiasco of disaster relief, but am I supposed to accept this crap? Where the hell is Bush? If I were the president, I'd write to Carnival, thanking them for helping out in a time of national crisis, but rejecting the contract. My letter would go as follows:Dear Carnival Cruise Lines,Thank you for the use of your three ships. As President, however, I cannot accept the contract, which my subordinates hastily signed. I think you will agree, that with everyone chipping in for disaster relief, including small children who are donating their lunch money for the cause, that paying $236 million is inappropriate.Sincerely,President BushThat's what he ought to do. And further, in future disasters, exercise the right of eminent domain! If we can evict a homeowner from his house to make way for a shopping mall, we can damn well take over a cruise ship or a hotel to house refugees.I'm telling you, if this contract stands, I'm off Bush and any politician that stands for it.P.S. I propose a boycott of Carnival cruises. Make it happen folks.

I maintain a religious issues blog at Agabus.com, focusing on issues of church history and doctrine, and also social issues and concerns. I am youth pastor at Mountain Bible Church.