Brantley claims Barton is wrong about darwinism pt 4

On June 9th Max Brantley on the Arkansas Times Blog referred to a Mother Jones Article that noted:

On Wednesday, Right Wing Watch flagged a recent interview Barton gave with an evangelcial talk show, in which he argues that the Founding Fathers had explicitly rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Yes, that Darwin. The one whose seminal work, On the Origin of Species, wasn’t even published until 1859. Barton declared, “As far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, they’d already had the entire debate over creation and evolution, and you get Thomas Paine, who is the least religious Founding Father, saying you’ve got to teach Creation science in the classroom. Scientific method demands that!” Paine died in 1809, the same year Darwin was born.

Here is the third part of the series that I started a few days ago about the founding fathers’ views on the origin of man. Below is an portion of an article by David Barton, “The Founding Fathers on Creation and Evolution.” 

While uninformed laymen erroneously believe the theory of evolution to be a product of Charles Darwin in his first major work of 1859 (The Origin of Species), the historical records are exceedingly clear that the evolution-creation-intelligent design debate was largely formulated well before the birth of Christ. Numerous famous writings have appeared on the topic for almost two thousand years; in fact, our Founding Fathers were well-acquainted with these writings and therefore the principle theories and teachings of evolution – as well as the science and philosophy both for and against that thesis – well before Darwin synthesized those centuries-old teachings in his writings.

Nobel-Prize winner Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) explains: “The general idea of evolution is very old; it is already to be found in Anaximander (sixth century B.C.). . . . [and] Descartes [1596-1650], Kant [1724-1804], and Laplace [1749-1827] had advocated a gradual origin for the solar system in place of sudden creation.” 1  ( Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1948), pp. 33-34.)…

…

John Quincy Adams

It is so obvious to every reasonable being, that he did not make himself; and the world which he inhabits could as little make itself that the moment we begin to exercise the power of reflection, it seems impossible to escape the conviction that there is a Creator. It is equally evident that the Creator must be a spiritual and not a material being; there is also a consciousness that the thinking part of our nature is not material but spiritual – that it is not subject to the laws of matter nor perishable with it. Hence arises the belief, that we have an immortal soul; and pursuing the train of thought which the visible creation and observation upon ourselves suggest, we must soon discover that the Creator must also he the Governor of the universe – that His wisdom and His goodness must be without bounds – that He is a righteous God and loves righteousness – that mankind are bound by the laws of righteousness and are accountable to Him for their obedience to them in this life, according to their good or evil deeds.19

But the first words of the Bible are, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The blessed and sublime idea of God as the creator of the universe – the Source of all human happiness for which all the sages and philosophers of Greece and Rome groped in darkness and never found – is recalled in the first verse of the book of Genesis. I call it the source of all human virtue and happiness because when we have attained the conception of a Being Who by the mere act of His will created the world, it would follow as an irresistible consequence (even if we were not told that the same Being must also be the governor of his own creation) that man, with all other things, was also created by Him, and must hold his felicity and virtue on the condition of obedience to His will. 2019. John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), Letter II, pp. 23-24. (Return)

20. John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), Letter II, pp. 27-28.

Here are some other posts about David Barton’s word on the unconfirmed quotes that have been attributed to the Founding Father and Barton’s effort to stop the Righteous Right for using these quotes in the future:

Unconfirmed Quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 6 David Barton:Were the Founding Fathers Deists? In 1988 only 25% of Christians voted but that doubled in 1994. Christians are the salt of the world. The last few days I have been  looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence […]

Two Unconfirmed quotes attributed to Noah Webster

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 5 David Barton: Were the Founding Fathers Deists? First Bible printed in USA was printed by our founding fathers for use in the public schools. 20,000 Bibles. 10 commandments hanging in our courthouses. The last few days I have been  looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding […]

Unconfirmed Quote attibuted to Patrick Henry

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 4 David Barton: Were Founding Fathers Deists? Only 5% of the original 250 founding fathers were not Christians (Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, Joe Barlow, Charles Lee, Henry Dearborn, ect) In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think […]

Samuel Adams Unconfirmed Quote was Confirmed Eventually

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 3 David Barton: Were Founding Fathers Deists? American Bible Society filled with Founding Fathers Here is another in the series of  unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence concerning them. David Barton has collected these quotes and tried to confirm them over the last 20 […]

Unconfirmed Quote attributed to Ben Franklin

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 2 David Barton on Founding Fathers were they deists? Not James Wilson and William Samuel Johnson In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence concerning them. David Barton has collected these quotes and […]

Unconfirmed Quote attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville

HALT: HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com Part 1 David Barton: Were the Founding Fathers Deists? Religious holidays, Court cases, punishing kids in school for praying in Jesus name In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding Fathers actually said and the historical evidence concerning them. David […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in David Barton | Edit | Comments (0)

Supreme Court never said It.

Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth David Barton goes through American History and looks at some of the obscure names in our history and how prayer and Bible Study affected some of our founding fathers In the next few weeks I will be looking at this issue of unconfirmed quotes that people think that the Founding […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in David Barton | Edit | Comments (0)

Lots of Fake Quotes of Founding Fathers in Circulation

HALT: Halting Arkansas Liberals with Truth   ___ I wanted to thank Gene Lyons for bringing this issue of fake quotes of the Founding Fathers to our attention because it should be addressed. In April 8, 2010 article “Facts Drowning in Disinformation,” he rightly notes that Thomas Jefferson never said, “The democracy will cease to [

June 18, 2011 – 2:48 pm Categories: David Barton | Post a comment

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 8, Henri Toulouse Lautrec)

Owen Wilson as Gil in "Midnight in Paris." 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics

Owen Wilson as Gil in “Midnight in Paris.”

I am currently going through all the characters referenced in Woody Allen’s film “Midnight in Paris.” Today I will be discussing Henri de Toulouse Lautrec.  By the way, I know that some of you are wondering how many posts I will have before I am finished. Right now I have plans to look at Geores Brague, Dali, Rodin,Coco Chanel, Modigliani, Matisse, Luis Bunuel, Josephine Baker, Van Gogh, Picasso, Man Ray, T.S. Elliot and several more.

Vincent Van Gogh and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec

 Very early when he arrived in Paris, Vincent met him at the Cormon workshop and they quickly became friends.
Toulouse-Lautrec will introduce him to many painters and merchants during the weekly afternoons that he organizes at home. He will take him to the Mirliton, Aristide Bruant’s cabaret, for the first time.
He wants to challenge the painter de Groult to a duel, as the latter criticized Vincent’s paintings at an exhibition.
The duel won’t take place because de Groult will apologize to him.
Toulouse-Lautrec is deeply affected and sad when he learns about Vincent’s suicide and he will come to his funeral.

Paul Gauguin and Henri Toulouse Lautrec were the greatest painters of the post-impressionists. They are pictured together in 1890 in Paris in Woody Allen’s new movie “Midnight in Paris.” My favorite philosopher Francis Schaeffer did a great job in his film series “How should we then live?” looking at the artists of this period and I wanted to share a couple clips from that film and a portion of the written outline. First, here is a brief biography of Lautrec’s life.

Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec was born on November 24, 1864, in southern France. Son and heir of Comte Alphonse-Charles de Toulouse, he was the last in the line of an aristocratic family that dated back a thousand years. Today, the family estate houses the Musée Toulouse-Lautrec. As a child, Henri was weak and often sick. But by the time he was ten years old he had begun to draw and paint.

At age twelve Toulouse-Lautrec broke his left leg and at fourteen his right leg. The bones did not heal properly, and his legs ceased to grow. He reached maturity with a body trunk of normal size but with abnormally short legs. He was only 4 1/2 feet (1.5 meters) tall.

Deprived of the physical life that a normal body would have permitted, Toulouse-Lautrec lived completely for his art. He dwelt in the Montmartre section of Paris, the center of the cabaret entertainment and bohemian life that he loved to depict in his work. Dance halls and nightclubs, racetracks, prostitutes – all these were memorialized on canvas or made into lithographs.

Toulouse-Lautrec was very much an active part of this community. He would sit at a crowded nightclub table, laughing and drinking, meanwhile making swift sketches. The next morning in his studio he would expand the sketches into brightly colored paintings.

(Currently in Little Rock the exhibit “The Impressionists” presented by Harriet and Warren Stephens has the “Study of a Woman” by Henri Toulouse Lautrec. I saw the exhibit and enjoyed it very much.)

view

Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. Study of a Woman (Etude de femme). (1893)

In order to join in the Montmartre life – as well as to fortify himself against the crowd’s ridicule of his appearance – Toulouse-Lautrec began to drink heavily. By the 1890s the drinking was affecting his health. He was confined first to a sanatorium and then to his mother’s care at home, but he could not stay away from alcohol. Toulouse-Lautrec died on September 9, 1901, at the family chateau of Malrome.

https://i0.wp.com/www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/6.jpg

How Should We Then Live Pt 7

AGE OF NON-REASON

I. Optimism Of Older Humanist Philosophers:

The unity and true knowledge of reality defined as starting from Man alone.

II. Shift in Modern Philosophy

A. Eighteenth century as the vital watershed.

B. Rousseau: ideas and influence.

1. Rousseau and autonomous freedom.

2. Personal freedom and social necessity clash in Rousseau.

3. Rousseau’s influence.

a) Robespierre and the ideology of the Terror.

b) Gauguin, natural freedom, and disillusionment.

C. DeSade: If nature is the absolute, cruelty equals non-cruelty.

D. Impossible tension between autonomous freedom and autonomous reasons conclusion that the

universe and people are a part of the total cosmic machine.

E. Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard and their followers sought for a unity but they did not solve the problem.

1. After these men and their followers, there came an absolute break between the area of meaning and values, and the area of reason.

2. Now humanistic philosophy sees reason as always leading to pessimism; any hope of optimism lies in non-reason.

III. Existentialism and Non-Reason

A. French existentialism.

1. Total separation of reason and will: Sartre.

2. Not possible to live consistently with this position.

B. German existentialism.

1. Jaspers and the “final experience.”

2. Heidegger and angst.

 

C. Influence of existentialism.

 

1. As a formal philosophy it is declining.

2. As a generalized attitude it dominates modern thought.

IV. Forms of Popularization of Nonrational Experience

A. Drug experience.

1. Aldous Huxley and “truth inside one’s head.”

2. Influence of rock groups in spreading the drug culture; psychedelic rock.

B. Eastern religious experience: from the drug trip to the Eastern religious trip.

C. The occult as a basis for “hope” in the area of non-reason.

V. Theological Liberalism and Existentialism

A. Preparation for theological existentialism.

1. Renaissance’s attempt to “synthesize” Greek philosophers and Christianity; religious liberals’ attempt to “synthesize” Enlightenment and Christianity.

2. Religious liberals denied supernatural but accepted reason.

3. Schweitzer’s demolition of liberal aim to separate the natural from the supernatural in the New Testament.

B. Theological existentialism.

1. Intellectual failure of rationalist theology opened door to theological existentialism.

2. Barth brought the existential methodology into theology.

a) Barth’s teaching led to theologians who said that the Bible is not true in the areas of science and history, but they nevertheless look for a religious experience from it.

b) For many adherents of this theology, the Bible does not give absolutes in regard to what is right or wrong in human behavior.

3. Theological existentialism as a cul-de-sac.

a) If Bible is divorced from its teaching concerning the cosmos and history, its values can’t be applied to a historic situation in either morals or law; theological pronouncements about morals or law are arbitrary.

b) No way to explain evil or distinguish good from evil. Therefore, these theologians are in same position as Hindu philosophers (as illustrated by Kali).

c) Tillich, prayer as reflection, and the deadness of “god.”

d) Religious words used for manipulation of society.

VI. Conclusion

With what Christ and the Bible teach, Man can have life instead of death—in having knowledge that is more than finite Man can have from himself.

_____________________________________

Comedy. Starring Owen Wilson, Marion Cotillard, Rachel Mc-Adams, Kathy Bates. Directed by Woody Allen. (PG-13. 100 minutes. At Bay Area theaters.)

Was there ever really a golden age? And if so, did people know it at the time? Are people even capable of recognizing a golden age when they’re in the midst of one? For Woody Allen, whose musical and cultural tastes run to the 1920s and ’30s, these questions have probably fueled countless daydreams. And now out of all that rumination comes “Midnight in Paris,” a movie that’s loving and wistful and often hysterically funny.

Romance is built into the design. A screenwriter, who has always been nostalgic, visits modern-day Paris and falls through a ripple in time: On a Paris street, a clock strikes midnight, and a 1920s taxicab drives up. F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald are inside, and they take him to a party. Though at first the writer thinks these are faux Fitzgeralds and that he’s at a costume party, he soon realizes that this is the real deal. He is surrounded by the music and styles he loves and is mingling with his idols and artistic heroes.

Our hero’s dislocation keeps the movie as light as it needs to be. Meeting celebrities can be awkward enough, but meeting legends of the past – the eagerness to please would be overwhelming. Yet always there is an edge of poignancy, too, because you are looking at the ’20s through the eyes of a modern person, as a world that is, by definition, past. The past is always romantic because it’s gone, just as the future is always frightening because you’regone.There’s an idea about Paris at work here, as well. Allen takes the notion of streets alive with the past and makes it literal in “Midnight in Paris,” so that everything that has ever happened in this city never goes away. It’s alive with parallel worlds – which is sometimes how we feel when we visit great cities like Paris, Rome or New York.Gil (Wilson) finds himself able to go back and forth between his own time and the ’20s, and so we keep feeling the contrast. In the 21st century, he is engaged to an awful spoiled brat played without compromise by Rachel Mc-Adams. Meanwhile, in his nightly ’20s rambles, he is falling in love with Adriana (Marion Cotillard), who is having an affair with Picasso. As was the case with Penélope Cruz in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” Woody Allen brings out, for the first time in an American film, the fire and allure Cotillard has shown in her European work.In the meantime, in between all the longing and wistfulness, this movie is sidesplitting because Allen gets to tap into an inexhaustible source of comedy: Whenever he wants a laugh, or 10 laughs, he just introduces another writer or painter and plays to our expectations. Every scene, for example, involving Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll) is a scream, because Allen has him talk the way Hemingway wrote. There is even a Man Ray joke here. And if you know Luis Buñuel’s “The Exterminating Angel,” you’ll fall out of your chair when Gil starts feeding him movie ideas.Adrien Brody shows up as the young Salvador Dalí – good casting. Alison Pill looks very much like Zelda, though Tom Hiddleston is too tall for Scott Fitzgerald, who was just a little bigger than Woody Allen. But Kathy Bates is just right as Gertrude Stein, as businesslike and motherly as you’d want her to be.— Advisory: Lots of smoking – they didn’t know better in those days.E-mail Mick LaSalle at mlasalle@sfchronicle.com.

Other posts with Woody Allen:

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 10 Salvador Dali)

Artists and bohemians inspired Woody Allen for ‘Midnight in Paris I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that he included in the movie. Today we will look at Salvador Dali. In this clip below you will see when Picasso […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 9, Georges Braque)

2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Lea Seydoux as Gabrielle in “Midnight in Paris.” Adriana and Gil are seen above walking together in the movie “Midnight in Paris.” Adriana was a fictional character who was Picasso’s mistress in the film. Earlier she had been Georges Braque’s mistress before moving on to Picasso according to […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 8, Henri Toulouse Lautrec)

How Should We Then Live 7#3 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Owen Wilson as Gil in “Midnight in Paris.” Paul Gauguin and Henri Toulouse Lautrec were the greatest painters of the post-impressionists. They are pictured together in 1890 in Paris in Woody Allen’s new movie “Midnight in Paris.” My favorite philosopher Francis Schaeffer […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 7 Paul Gauguin)

How Should We Then Live 7#1 Dr. Francis Schaeffer examines the Age of Non-Reason and he mentions the work of Paul Gauguin. 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Kurt Fuller as John and Mimi Kennedy as Helen in “Midnight in Paris.” I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 6 Gertrude Stein)

Midnight In Paris – SPOILER Discussion by What The Flick?! Associated Press Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas in 1934 This video clip below discusses Gertrude Stein’s friendship with Pablo Picasso: I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 5 Juan Belmonte)

2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Gad Elmaleh as Detective Tisserant in “Midnight in Paris.” I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that he included in the movie. Juan Belmonte was the most famous bullfighter of the time […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 4 Ernest Heminingway)

  Woody Allen explores fantasy world with “Midnight in Paris” 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway in “Midnight in Paris.” The New York Times Ernest Hemingway, around 1937 I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 3 Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald)

What The Flick?!: Midnight In Paris – Review by What The Flick?! 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Alison Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald and Tom Hiddleston as F. Scott Fitzgerald in “Midnight in Paris.” 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics Owen Wilson as Gil in “Midnight in Paris.” 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 2 Cole Porter)

The song used in “Midnight in Paris” I am going through the famous characters that Woody Allen presents in his excellent movie “Midnight in Paris.” This series may be a long one since there are so many great characters. De-Lovely – Movie Trailer De-Lovely – So in Love – Kevin Kline, Ashley Judd & Others […]

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 1 William Faulkner)

Photo by Phill Mullen The only known photograph of William Faulkner (right) with his eldest brother, John, was taken in 1949. Like his brother, John Faulkner was also a writer, though their writing styles differed considerably. My grandfather, John Murphey, (born 1910) grew up in Oxford, Mississippi and knew both Johncy and “Bill” Faulkner. He […]

I love Woody Allen’s latest movie “Midnight in Paris”

I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” was so good that I will be doing a series on it. My favorite Woody Allen movie is Crimes and Misdemeanors and I will provide links to my earlier posts on that great movie. Movie Guide the Christian website had the following review: MIDNIGHT IN PARIS is the […]

  The Associated Press reported today:   The signature under the typewritten words on yellowing sheets of nearly century-old paper is unmistakable: Adolf Hitler, with the last few scribbled letters drooping downward. The date is 1919 and, decades before the Holocaust, the 30-year-old German soldier — born in Austria — penned what are believed to be […]

Solomon, Woody Allen, Coldplay and Kansas (Coldplay’s spiritual search Part 6)

Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago: Solomon, Woody Allen, Coldplay and Kansas What does King Solomon, the movie director Woody Allen and the modern rock bands Coldplay and Kansas have in common? All four took on the issues surrounding death, the meaning of life and a possible afterlife, although they all came up with their own conclusions on […]

Insight into what Coldplay meant by “St. Peter won’t call my name” (Series on Coldplay’s spiritual search, Part 3)

Coldplay seeks to corner the market on earnest and expressive rock music that currently appeals to wide audiences Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago about Chris Martin’s view of hell. He says he does not believe in it but for some reason he writes a song that teaches that it […]

June 18, 2011 – 2:45 pm Categories: Current Events, Francis Schaeffer | Post a comment

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 56)jh70

The Royal Wedding in Photos
Britain’s Prince William, center left, and his wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, center right, pose for a photograph with, clockwise from bottom right, Margarita Armstrong-Jones, Eliza Lopes, Grace van Cutsem, Lady Louise Windsor, Tom Pettifer, and William Lowther-Pinkerton in the Throne Room at Buckingham Palace, following their wedding at Westminster Abbey, London, on Friday, April 29, 2011 in this photo provided by Clarence House on Saturday, April 30, 2011. (Hugo Burnand, Clarence House/AP Photo)
I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.

Permanence Before Experience – The Wisdom of Marriage

Thu, Mar. 04, 2010 Posted: 09:05 PM EDT

Rightly understood, marriage is all about permanence. In a world of transitory experiences, events, and commitments, marriage is intransigent. It simply is what it is – a permanent commitment made by a man and a woman who commit themselves to live faithfully unto one another until the parting of death.

That is what makes marriage what it is. The logic of marriage is easy to understand and difficult to subvert, which is one reason the institution has survived over so many millennia. Marriage lasts because of its fundamental status. It is literally what a healthy and functioning society cannot survive without.

And yet, modernity can be seen as one long attempt to subvert the permanent – including marriage. The modern age has brought the rise of individual autonomy, the collection of populations in cities, the weakening of family commitments, the waning of faith, the routinization of divorce, and a host of other developments that subvert marriage and the commitment it requires.

Added to this list is the phenomenon of cohabitation. The twentieth century saw the phenomenon of cohabitation become the expectation among many, if not most, young adults. But the end of the century, the progression of intimacy (including sexual intimacy) was likely to follow a line from “hooking up” to cohabiting.

A new study conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics suggests two very important findings: First, that cohabiting is now the norm for younger adults. Second, cohabiting makes divorce more likely after eventual marriage.

“Cohabitation is increasingly becoming the first co-residential union formed among young adults,” states the report. The facts seem daunting. The percentage of women in their 30s who report having cohabited is over 60 percent – doubled over the last fifteen years.

Reporting in The New York Times, Sam Roberts documents the rise of cohabitation among the young. He cites Pamela J. Smock of the University of Michigan’s Population Studies Center. “From the perspective of many young adults, marrying without living together first seems quite foolish,” she explains.

That perfectly captures the new logic – that it would be foolish to marry without first cohabiting. How can you know if you are really meant for each other? How can you measure compatibility without the experience of living together?

That logic makes perfect sense in a society that is increasingly sexualized, secularized, and “liberated” from the expectations of the past.

Reacting to the research findings, Professor Kelly A. Musick of Cornell University asserted, “The figures suggest to me that cohabitation is still a pathway to marriage for many college graduates, while it may be an end in itself for many less educated women.” The study report affirmed her assessment: “Cohabitation is increasingly becoming the first co-residential union formed among young adults . . . . As a result of the growing prevalence of cohabitation, the number of children born to unmarried cohabiting parents has also increased.”

But, as this new report suggests, cohabiting before marriage does not lead to a stronger and more permanent union. Instead, the experience of cohabiting weakens the union. As Roberts reports: “The likelihood that a marriage would last for a decade or more decreased by six percentage points if the couple had cohabited first, the study found.”

Pamela Smock argues that the research will fall on deaf ears. “Just because some academic studies have shown that living together may increase the chance of divorce somewhat, young adults themselves don’t believe that.”

That may be true, and it surely captures the spirit of the age. The experience of cohabiting just makes sense to many young adults. Their logic is that marriage is what happens after a relationship becomes sexually intimate and is found to be adequately fulfilling – not before.

They do not know that what they are actually doing is undoing marriage. They miss the central logic of marriage as an institution of permanence. They miss the essential wisdom of marriage – that the commitment must come before the intimacy, that the vows must come before the shared living, that the wisdom of marriage is its permanence before its experience.

Cohabitation weakens marriage – even a cohabiting couple’s eventual marriage – because a temporary and transitory commitment always weakens a permanent commitment. Having lived together with the open possibility of parting, that possibility always remains, and never leaves.

This research might not alter the plans of many young couples, who are not likely to read, much less be advised by such research. But it does affirm what makes marriage what it is, and what weakens and destroys marriage as an institution.

From a Christian perspective there is more, of course. We are reminded of marriage as God’s gift and expectation, and of the divine goodness of it. We are also reminded that it is our Creator, and not we ourselves, who knows that we need permanence before experience. We need marriage.

Adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.’s weblog at www.albertmohler.com. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Christian Post Guest Columnist

____________________________

Dr. Adrian Rogers – Steadfast Loyalty To Your Wife

Benefits of Attending a Weekend to Remember

Tim Hawkins- Fire Ants

June 18, 2011 – 2:44 pm Categories: Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Comments (2)

The Characters referenced in Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” (Part 7 Paul Gauguin)

How Should We Then Live Pt 7

Dr. Francis Schaeffer examines the Age of Non-Reason and he mentions the work of Paul Gauguin.

Kurt Fuller as John and Mimi Kennedy as Helen in "Midnight in Paris." 2011 Roger Arpajou / Sony Pictures Classics

Kurt Fuller as John and Mimi Kennedy as Helen in “Midnight in Paris.”

I love the movie “Midnight in Paris” by Woody Allen and I am going through the whole list of famous writers and artists that he included in the movie. Today I am looking at Paul Gauguin. By the way, I know that some of you are wondering how many posts I will have before I am finished. Right now I have plans to look at Lautrec, Geores Brague, Dali, Rodin,Coco Chanel, Modigliani, Matisse, Luis Bunuel, Josephine Baker, Van Gogh, Picasso, Man Ray, T.S. Elliot and several more.

Gauguin was a financially successful stockbroker and self-taught amateur artist when he began collecting works by the impressionists in the 1870s. Inspired by their example, he took up the study of painting under Camille Pissarro. Pissarro and Edgar Degas arranged for him to show his early painting efforts in the fourth impressionist exhibition in 1879 (as well as the annual impressionist exhibitions held through 1882). In 1882, after a stock market crash and recession rendered him unemployed and broke, Gauguin decided to abandon the business world to pursue life as an artist full-time.

https://i0.wp.com/www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/22.jpg

In 1886, Gauguin went to Pont-Aven in Brittany, a rugged land of fervently religious people far from the urban sophistication of Paris. There he forged a new style. He was at the center of a group of avant-garde artists who dedicated themselves to synthétisme, ordering and simplifying sensory data to its fundamentals. Gauguin’s greatest innovation was his use of color, which he employed not for its ability to mimic nature but for its emotive qualities. He applied it in broad flat areas outlined with dark paint, which tended to flatten space and abstract form. This flattening of space and symbolic use of color would be important influences on early twentieth-century artists.

In Brittany, Gauguin had hoped to tap the expressive potential he believed rested in a more rural, even “primitive” culture. Over the next several years he traveled often between Paris and Brittany, spending time also in Panama and Martinique. In 1891 his rejection of European urban values led him to Tahiti, where he expected to find an unspoiled culture, exotic and sensual. Instead, he was confronted with a world already transformed by western missionaries and colonial rule. In large measure, Gauguin had to invent the world he sought, not only in paintings but with woodcarvings, graphics, and written works. As he struggled with ways to express the questions of life and death, knowledge and evil that preoccupied him, he interwove the images and mythology of island life with those of the west and other cultures. After a trip to France (1893 to 1895), Gauguin returned to spend his remaining years, marred by illness and depression, in the South Seas.

__________________________

Below is from an article by Brian Thomas and is based on Francis Schaeffer’s film series “How should we then live?”

Gauguin as an artist strived to give his work a more human touch, expressing feelings and knowledge and human reactions to the realities of life, while at the same time freeing himself as an artist to express color and design boldly, overcoming the narrowness of merely copying what the eye can register as the impressionists painted. In an attempt to obtain his goal of “regaining humanity,” as he called it, he moved to Tahiti in 1891. It was here that he painted his greatest work in 1897: Whence? What? Whither?

During the course of 1897 Gauguin referred increasingly to his own death, alluding to suicide in letters and his journal. In the autumn he noted that “The artist dies, his heirs make a grab for his works, sort out the copyright, his estate, and whatever else there might be to do. Now he has been stripped to the bone. I think about these things, and am going to strip myself first: it gives me a sense of relief.”

As Gauguin contemplated taking his own life he set out to create a painting that would leave a lasting legacy of his faith, worldview, artistic insight and intentions by asking three metaphysical questions: Where do we come from? What art we? Where are we going?

From Wikipedia:

Woher kommen wir Wer sind wir Wohin gehen wir.jpg
Artist Paul Gauguin
Year 1897-1898
Type oil on canvas
Dimensions 139.1 cm × 374.6 cm (54.8 in × 147.5 in)
Location Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

art_Gauguin.jpg

In a letter to friend Daniel de Monfreid, he describes the painting as a “philosophical work” which could be compared to the Gospels. We must read the work, he said, from right to left and interprets it as such:

“In the bottom right-hand corner there is a sleeping child, then three covering women. Two figures dressed in purple are deep in conversation. A crouching figure, which defies perspective, and is meant to do so, looks very large. This figure is raising its arm and looking in astonishment at the two women who dare to think about their own fate. The central figure is picking fruit from a tree. Two cats by a child…a white goat. The idol is raising both its arms with rhythmic energy and seems to be pointing to somewhere beyond here. A covering girl appears to be listening to the idol. An old woman, close to the end of life, completes the circle. She is ready to accept her fate. At her feet a strange, white bird with a lizard in its talons symbolizes the futility of empty words…”

Where do we come from? A baby lies next to some young women as the source of life. What are we? A woman stands reaching for the apple, a probable reference to Eve in the garden and man’s fall into sin and ruin. Where are we going? From right to left we see the process of ageing taking place culminating in an old woman, “ready to accept her fate.” Art historian H.R. Rookmaaker suggests that in the background “mysterious figures, in sad colors, standing near the tree of knowledge, are sad as a result of that knowledge.”

It is interesting to note that a few days after completing this work, Gauguin went off into the woods and swallowed a large amount of arsenic. But his body rejected it and he was unable to keep the poison down.

I give this example to show how form and content can beautifully integrate in such a way as to make the work a more powerful vehicle of expression. It should be obvious to the reader by now that I do not share Gauguin’s unfortunate outlook on life, but as an artist and a Christian, I appreciate the thought and purpose behind his masterpiece. Both the aesthetic quality and intellectual content marry to form an important and thought-provoking piece of art. The creators of the religious kitsch that line the shelves at your local happy Christian bookstore could learn much from the serious attention Gauguin put into his work.

As Schaeffer was quick to warn, we should not judge art by this criterion alone, but view all works of art by its technique, validity, worldview, and suiting of form to content to gain a deeper understanding, appreciation, and true evaluation.

________________________

I got to visit the exhibit “The Impressionists and their influence,” presented by Harriet and Warren Stephens at the Arkansas Arts Center in Little Rock in June of 2011. I got to see this painting below:

gaunoanoa.jpg

“Yes, indeed, the savages have taught many things to the man of an old civilization; these ignorant men have taught him much in the art of living and happiness. Above all, they have taught me to know myself better; they have told me the deepest truth. Was this thy secret, thou mysterious world? Oh mysterious world of all light, thou hast made a light shine within me, and I have grown in admiration of thy antique beauty, which is the immemorial youth of nature. I have become better for having understood and having loved thy human soul— a flower which has ceased to bloom and whose fragrance no one henceforth will breathe.”

Paul Gauguin, Noa Noa

The passage above comes from the end of Paul Gauguin’s travel journal in Tahiti entitled Noa Noa. Literally meaning “fragrant, fragrant”, the phrase noa noa is introduced to the reader at the end of the opening chapter when Gauguin describes the intoxicating scent of the Tahitian women upon his arrival. “A mingled perfume,” he writes, “half animal, half vegetable emanated from them; the perfume of their blood and of the gardenias— tiaré— which all wore in their hair. ‘Téiné merahi noa noa (now very fragrant),’ [the women] said.” (Gauguin 8).

During his first visit to Tahiti (1891-3), Gauguin documented his experiences on this two-year journey from beginning to end, even starting with his initial disappointment at the overwhelming presence of French civilization in Polynesia. Upon viewing the queen of the island at her husband’s funeral, however, Gauguin is taken by her “Maori charm” (Gauguin 6) marking the beginning of his passionate love affair with Tahiti. Gauguin not only recorded his personal encounters with the land, the people, and specifically the women, but he also made his journal a sort of anthropological report: providing first-hand accounts of their customs, religious beliefs and cultural history. In one section, Gauguin even discusses Tahitian astronomy, listing mythical histories behind the names of the stars, and the Polynesian version of Genesis, even complete with detailed accounts of whom originally begat who, as is provided in the Old Testament of the Bible.

TeFaruru.jpgWhile it is important to remember that Noa Noa is a journal and lacks the objectivity needed for a truly comprehensive and factual account of nineteenth century Tahiti, this bias gives us a personal window into what Gauguin saw through his eyes. The juxtaposition of sketches mixed with his own words allowed Gauguin to provide us with the Tahiti that he wanted to share with the world. One of the most interesting artistic elements of his original manuscript was his series of ten woodcuts that he intended to publish as a part of the journal. Drawn to the “primitive” techniques and materials used in this artform, Gauguin even used unsophisticated tools to achieve a new, less traditional print (Chapman, GroveArt.com). Unfortunately, as Noa Noa was considered “a bit much for stuffy 1900 Europe” (Gauguin ix), Gauguin had to publish the journal himself and omit the woodcuts. In newer versions of Noa Noa, however, the woodcuts have been included alongside his words and several of his original sketches.

In all, perhaps the most valuable thing to come out of Gauguin’s accounts in Noa Noa is an intimate look into the motive behind many of his great works of art. Frequent themes in the journal are also found throughout his works such as Polynesian mythical culture, Tahitian women, androgynous figures, sexual freedom, and the beauty of this Paradise on Earth. In the spirit of a true artist, Gauguin even has his journal come full circle as he ends the book with the flower that his wife once wore behind her ear, now wilted on her knee, a symbol of the end of a journey that opened with an introduction to the flowered, fragrant women observed at the start, who would eventually become the inspiration for such an important period in his life and career.

__________________________________________________

June 18, 2011 – 11:20 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Ronald Wilson Reagan (Part 94)

https://i0.wp.com/www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c40615-18A.jpg

President Reagan attending the Bob Hope Salute to the United States Air Force 40th Anniversary celebration with Kirk Cameron, Phyllis Diller, Lucille Ball and Emmanuel Lewis at Pope Air Force base in Fayetteville, North Carolina. 5/10/87

7:40 PM EDT on November 6, 1984 from ABC7 WLS-TV Chicago.
ABC News – The 84 Vote
Peter Jennings, David Brinkley, Bert Lance – Georgia Dem State Chairman

Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation wrote an excellent article on Ronald Reagan and the events that transpired during the Reagan administration,  and I wanted to share it with you. Here is the seventh portion:

There is no denying that American indebtedness increased significantly during the Reagan years. Reagan borrowed $1 for every $5 he spent, increasing the national debt by $1.5 trillion through 1988. He didn’t have to worry too much about where to get the money — America was still such a good credit risk that people around the world “pressed money on us, and we obliged, borrowing easily, quickly, and almost guiltlessly,” in Cannon’s words, [xxi] But Reagan did feel guilty about the accumulated debt or as much as anyone with his unassailable optimism could feel guilty. He admitted that his failures to cut federal spending absolutely and to balance the federal budget were his “biggest disappointments” as president.[xxii]

But it is a little-remembered fact, as Cato Institute economist Stephen Moore has emphasized, that by the end of the Reagan era, the federal deficit as a share of gross domestic product was falling, and rapidly — from 6 percent in 1985 to 3 percent in 1989. As Reagan left office, the Democrat-controlled Congressional Budget Office projected that “deficits were on a path to fall to about one percent of GDP by 1993,” without any action by future presidents.[xxiii]

Reagan never ignored the deficit — he just had more important things on his mind. As he said in 1981, “I did not come here to balance the budget — not at the expense of my tax-cutting program and my defense program.”[xxiv] Still, every budget he submitted to Congress outlined spending reductions which would have reduced the cumulative deficit during the 1980s by several hundred billion dollars. But Congress nullified this possibility with a succession of “continuing resolutions” that enabled the government to keep operating and keep spending at the same level.

The persistent deficits did, however, have an unintended impact on Congress, which for the first time in the post-war era began to “impose limits on the growth of government.” Of all the measures we know, Milton Friedman wrote, “the deficit has been the only effective restraint on congressional spending.”[xxv]

President Reagan devoted most of his time in the spring and early summer of 1981 (after he had recovered from the March 30th shooting by would-be assassin John Hinckley) building a consensus for his economic recovery program. Time’s Lawrence Barrett described the president’s strategy as initial “seduction” followed by a “blitzkreig.”[xxvi] Reagan began by showing the Washington establishment that he was not a dangerous man or a “political freak.” He had drinks with House Speaker Tip O’Neill, a meeting with Senator Edward Kennedy, and a chat with publisher Katharine Graham of the Washington Post. Quite a charmer, they agreed, but certainly no real threat to the way Washington works.

O’Neill was so deceived that he condescendingly offered some advice to the new fellow in town: “You were governor of a state,” he told Reagan, “but a governor plays in the minor leagues. Now you’re in the big leagues. Things might not move as quickly as you would like.” Just eight months later, the House of Representatives passed Reagan’s economic recovery plan by 238-195, with the cross-over help of forty-eight Democrats who didn’t mind going against their Speaker when it was in the best interests of their constituents.

Reagan called Congress’s passage of the bill “the greatest political victory in half a century.” Jubilant conservatives described it as a “new economic beginning.” David Broder of the Washington Post proclaimed Reagan’s tax victory as “one of the most remarkable demonstrations of presidential leadership in modern history.”[xxvii] The $162 billion tax cut dwarfed any previous one in the postwar period — Ford’s $22.8 billion reduction in 1975 was a distant second.

The cuts in personal income taxes “had a permanency unlike that of any [previous] tax bill” because of the indexing provision. In the past, individuals were pushed into higher tax brackets whenever their income rose along with inflation. ERTA did away with “bracket creep” and prevented political leaders from “solving” fiscal deficits by waiting for inflation to increase revenues each year. From now on, Congress had to pass and the president had to sign any tax increase out in the open. How to collect government revenues “became the dominating political issue of the 1980s.”[xxviii]

June 18, 2011 – 5:58 am Categories: Ronald Reagan | Post a comment

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 55)

The Royal Wedding Ceremony of William and Kate Live part 3/4

I really do wish Kate and William success in their marriage. I hope they truly are committed to each other, and if they are then the result will be a marriage that lasts their whole lifetime. Nevertheless, I do not think it is best to live together before marriage like they did, and I am writing this series to help couples see how best to prepare for marriage.
• Cohabitation also deteriorates parental authority. For single parents who are interested in the spiritual training of their children, cohabitation makes the strength of their message weaker.  ”How can mom tell me not to do something when she moved us into his house before they were married?” I’ve heard many an adolescent ask.  ”Good point,” I respond.  I’ll never forget hearing one child say, “We go to church, but I’m not sure why.  In the end, my dad lives by convenience.  That’s why he lives with Marsha.”  Parents who want children who live by God’s moral standards must themselves live by those same standards, no matter how “impractical” it may be. (Ron L. Deal, from Growthtrac.com article “The Elephant in the Bedroom”)

Weekend to Remember Story – Dennis Rainey

Tim Hawkins – “Some Songs Should Be One Verse”

Revelation (Biblical Numbers 4 of 4)-Dr Adrian Rogers

Tara Palmer-Tomkinson’s topper stood out in a sea of hats—there’s just something about a full-on electric blue ensemble that grabs your attention.

June 18, 2011 – 3:24 am Categories: Adrian Rogers, Current Events | Post a comment

Jerry Van Dyke Arkansas resident (Part 3)

Stacie Petry Episode 16 part 1 of 3 (Dick & Jerry Van Dyke)

Dick van Dyke’s brother, Jerry, plays a bumbling sibling in one of my favorite episode of the Dick Van Dyke show. Jerry’s character is one of my favorite TV characters of all time … his sense of humor and comedic timing is perfect!! Enjoy!

______________________________

I went to see Jerry Van Dyke and Tommy Smoothers in the play “The Sunshine Boys” in Hot Springs back on June 1, 2011 with my son Wilson and it was great. Here is an article on Van Dyke:

BIOGRAPHY:

He has that same genuine likability factor, owns that same trademark lantern jaw and is just as appealing and gifted as his brother Dick Van Dyke, but for decades Jerry Van Dyke had to bear the brunt of his brother’s overwhelming shadow. The comic actor was born six years younger than Dick on July 27, 1931, in Danville, Illinois. Raised there, the crew cut blond showed an aptitude for clowning in high school. His stand-up comedy venues first took the form of dives and strip clubs throughout the Deep South in which his banjo-playing became an intricate part of the routine. At one point, Jerry was a regular on the Playboy club circuit. He then set his sights on the top showrooms in Las Vegas, Lake Tahoe and Atlantic City and became a dependable opening act.

Jerry’s early career should have been rightfully interrupted when he joined the Air Force in 1952. He instead kept the troops laughing by performing in Special Services shows. Winning a military talent contest actually earned him a couple of appearances on “The Ed Sullivan Show” and resulting TV exposure. Following his tour of duty, he nabbed variety appearances and a regular comic relief role on “The Judy Garland Show” (1963). He found comic acting parts as well on TV. Like brother Dick, who was a huge TV star by this time, Jerry also did a stint emceeing a game show. In Jerry’s case, it was “Picture This” (1963).

Ever the hapless klutz and happy-go-lucky stammerer, Jerry built up his TV reputation in the early 60s. He turned down the title role in “Gilligan’s Island” (1964), which he rightfully deemed inane, but instead chose the equally silly “My Mother the Car” (1965). It proved to be a detrimental career move. While “Gilligan” became a surprise hit that still runs in syndication four decades later, Jerry had to live down starring in one of the most lambasted sitcoms of all time. Truthfully, the two shows were on an equal (sub)par with each other. It was just a cruel luck of the draw that Jerry ended up biting the bullet while Gilligan’s Bob Denver found cult celebrity. Jerry’s subsequent two series were also one seasoners with “Accidental Family” (1967), a sitcom in which he more or less played himself (a nightclub comedian), and “The Headmaster” (1970), a drama starring Andy Griffith (I) in which he played a physical education coach. Neither did much for his career. A promising co-star role with Griffith in the film Angel in My Pocket (1969) also went nowhere. Over the years, Jerry has appeared as a guest star on a number of brother Dick’s shows, including the classic “The Dick Van Dyke Show” (1961) in which he played, of course, Dick’s brother.

The genially dim character George Utley on Bob Newhart’s 1980s series was originally created for Jerry but Tom Poston assumed the part. Good fortune finally smiled on Jerry when he won the hapless role of Luther Van Dam, a role that capped his long career, on “Coach” (1989). He earned four consecutive Emmy nominations and a steady paycheck for eight seasons. His seesaw struggle and survival after nearly five decades truly paid off this time, and only proves his love for the business.

In his 70s now, Jerry Van Dyke spends much of his time at a ranch in Arkansas where he lives with his second wife, the former Shirley Jones (not the singer/actress), and raises cattle. Tragedy struck in 1991 when one of his three children, Kelly, a substance abuser, took her own life. On the sly, one can also find Jerry at the poker table as part of ESPN tournaments

TRIVIA:

  • Turned down the role of Gilligan in _”Gilligan’s Island” (1964)_ (qv) because he thought it was “the worst thing” he’d ever read. Instead, he chose to do _”My Mother the Car” (1965)_ (qv). Admitted to having regrets about turning down the offer to star in _”Gilligan’s Island” (1964)_ (qv).
  • Was one of the first people to tour with the Air Force Tops in Blue. Appeared on the Ed Sullivan show with the group.
  • The part of George Utley on _”Newhart” (1982)_ (qv) was originally created for him.
  • Brother of actor ‘Dick Van Dyke’ (qv).
  • Father of actress ‘Nancee Kelly’ (qv).
  • Started his television career at WTHI-TV in Terre Haute in the 1950s. He and his brother both applied for a job there but Dick did not get hired.
  • Daughter, Jerri, runs Jerry Van Dyke’s Soda Shoppe in Benton, Arkansas.
  • Uncle of actor ‘Barry Van Dyke’ (qv), ‘Carrie Beth van Dyke’ (qv), ‘Christian Van Dyke’ (qv) and ‘Stacy Van Dyke’ (qv).

Stacie Petry Episode 16 part 2 of 3 (Dick & Jerry Van Dyke)

Stacie Petry Episode 16 part 3 of 3 (Dick & Jerry Van Dyke)

June 18, 2011 – 1:20 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Jerry Van Dyke Arkansas resident (Part 2)

I went to see Jerry Van Dyke and Tommy Smoothers in the play “The Sunshine Boys” in Hot Springs back on June 1, 2011 with my son Wilson and it was great. Here is an article on Van Dyke:

October 5, 2007

Jerry Van Dyke keeps fans entertained

BY MARY WICOFF The Commercial-News Fri Oct 05, 2007, 11:19 PM CDT

DANVILLE — Jackie Collins was walking past Temple Plaza when she stopped in her tracks and pointed.

“The ‘Coach’ guy,” she exclaimed, smiling at Jerry Van Dyke. “I’m old enough to remember that.”

Van Dyke, who kept on signing autographs for a handful of people, is used to being recognized as Luther Van Dam on the sitcom “Coach.”

“You’re always alive in reruns,” he said with a smile.

The actor/comedian is in his hometown to attend this weekend’s reunion of the Danville High School Class of 1949. He also will be the honored guest at the Danville Tennis Club’s open house Sunday.

As he and his wife, Shirley, make their way around town, people politely ask for his autograph or shake his hand.

Van Dyke said a lot of people recognize him, thanks to constant reruns of “Coach,” which aired from 1989-94.

Although the 76-year-old has appeared on many shows, either as the star or in a supporting role, he doesn’t mind that he’s best known as a befuddled assistant coach.

“Before that, I was (only known as) Dick Van Dyke’s brother,” he joked.

Van Dyke, an avid tennis player, made sure he hit the courts every day.

Friday morning, Van Dyke paired off with tennis pro Scott Simpson to challenge his wife and Scott’s wife, Cathy, director of the Danville Tennis Club.

The men beat the women, but Van Dyke noted he had taught his wife how to play.

“Everybody hit the ball well,” onlooker Elzer Marx said.

“Almost everybody,” a winded Van Dyke shot back.

Van Dyke, who arrived in Danville on Wednesday, said he tries to get back to Danville almost every year. He usually slips into town quietly, he said.

“I love to come back to Danville and see my friends,” he said.

He and his wife of 30 years left Los Angeles in 1994, when an earthquake destroyed their home. They divide their time between an 850-acre ranch in Arkansas — where Shirley was raised — and a home south of Cancun, Mexico.

Van Dyke likes Arkansas because it’s similar to Illinois, but without the severe winters, Shirley said. He’s a warm-climate person who has to move on when the temperatures dip below 80 degrees.

Enjoying the warm sun in Temple Plaza, Van Dyke chitchatted with a couple of employees from the East Central Illinois Community Action Agency. When they pointed to their workplace — the building at the corner of Vermilion and North — he remarked it used to be Walgreens drugstore.

“On my first date, I walked to Walgreens with my dog,” he said. After a pause, he quipped, “I think the girl was pretty much a dog, too.”

Van Dyke noted a lot of things haven’t changed in Danville, including his childhood home at Grant and Townsend. The house, the oak tree and the cobblestone street still look the same, he said, as well as the pavilion and trees at nearby Lincoln Park.

“That’s a great thing about a town like this,” he said.

He’s disappointed the Fischer Theatre is sitting unused, saying he’s done everything he could do. Van Dyke said he was behind a fundraiser for the theater a few years ago.

While Danville has its problems, Van Dyke said it’s still a great place to live.

“I have such fond memories of growing up here,” he said. “The older you get, the more you think about growing up. I had the best growing-up ever.”

Except for World War II, the 1940s and ‘50s were the best decades, he said. He used to leave the house and not come home until dinner — and no one worried about him.

When someone mentioned there are a lot of stories going around about Van Dyke’s youthful adventures, he acknowledged he was behind those pranks. His brother, Dick, was the quiet one who didn’t do anything wrong, he said.

Van Dyke, who was the class clown, said it took him five years to get through high school, adding that he probably had Attention Deficit Disorder.

Today, young people are treated for the disorder, but, he said, “Back then, you were just stupid.”

When someone asked to take his photo, Van Dyke politely agreed.

“I take my own photos and send them in (to the media),” he said. Joking that there wasn’t any paparazzi following him, he wondered, “What’s Lindsay Lohan got that I don’t got?”

Van Dyke has done shows in Las Vegas recently — one called “Last Comics Barely Standing.” The shows, featuring other comedians from the past, have sold out, he said.

Van Dyke also clearly remembers reviews about his performances, including one when he was 16 and appeared in Red Mask Players’ “The Man Who Came to Dinner.” Commercial-News editor Bob Wright wrote: “Probably the find of the evening was Jerry Van Dyke.”

Later, he appeared as a regular on the Judy Garland Show in 1963, and a New York columnist called him “a big-footed oaf.”

Nodding at his wife, he joked, “She’s called me that ever since.”

RECEPTION

Jerry Van Dyke will be present during an open house from 1-2:30 p.m. Sunday at the Danville Tennis Club in Lincoln Park. The open house is a dual celebration to welcome Van Dyke, a longtime supporter of the club, and to mark the club’s 60th anniversary.

Van Dyke is in town for Danville High School’s Class of 1949 reunion. A dinner will be at 6 tonight and a brunch will be at 10 a.m. Sunday, both at the Boat Club.

June 18, 2011 – 12:01 am Categories: Current Events | Post a comment

Bryan Fisher of American Family Radio critical of Southern Baptist leaders

I grew up at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis and Adrian Rogers was my pastor. Therefore, I took notice of this news story below. 

On the whole, this was not a great week for the Southern Baptist Convention, as one of its leaders appeared to pander to the homosexual lobby and the convention itself pandered to lawbreakers, all in the space of two dizzying days.

Rev. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, urged attendees at the SBC’s annual convention to “repent” of what he called “a form of homophobia,” without saying exactly what kind of homophobia he was talking about.

Evidently, according to Rev. Mohler, if you don’t believe gays are born that way, you’re either a homophobe or right next to it. He told the delegates at the SBC that homosexuality is “more than a choice,” and that it apparently borders on something sinful to believe otherwise.

He did not elaborate on exactly what he meant by “more than a choice,” but what else could it mean but that he’s urging SBC’ers to accept the bogus claim that homosexuality is innate and that people can be homosexual from birth. Perhaps that’s not what he meant to say; if it wasn’t, then it’s important for him to clarify exactly what he did mean.

Paul uses choice words over and over again in Romans 1:26-27 to emphasize that the problem with homosexuality is behavior, and that such behavior represents a choice. Note the choice words there: “…their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, and the men likewisegave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men…”

Rev. Mohler’s motives for this unfortunate choice in wording are unclear,  but If it was an effort to get gays to like him, or to like the SBC, good luck with that. They will accept nothing less than total abject, surrender, and Rev. Mohler didn’t offer them that. He still calls homosexuality a “sin,” and that will make his position completely unacceptable to the folks he was trying to appease.

Rev. Mohler is on the board of Focus on the Family, which is also sending confusing signals regarding the homosexual agenda, as its president, Jim Daly, now supports placing foster children in gay households and supports civil unions legislation as long as it, in his judgment, is properly written.

The good news is that the president of the SBC, Rev. Frank Wright, met with homosexual activists this week and did not budge an inch in the face of their demand for an apology for teaching the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. He told these activists what Rev. Mohler could have said, that, “Obviously, we don’t feel that there can be an apology for teaching sexual purity.” 

Then the entire SBC convention adopted a resolution to reward people who break the law, hardly something a clear-thinking, Bible-centered organization should do. The good folk at the SBC want a “path to legal status” guaranteed to people who do not even have the legal, moral or biblical right to be in this country to begin with. They lamely added language to claim that this is not “amnesty,” but they’re not fooling anybody with that.

In fact, the SBC accused those who reject amnesty of “bigotry.” The bottom line is that, whether they realize it or not, the Southern Baptists have thus adopted, as an official position of the denomination, that anyone who supports the rule of law is a bigot.

The time-honored standard of ancient Israel was quite clear: there was to be “one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:16), not two different sets of statutes in which illegals get rewarded for breaking the law and the native-born get punished. 

This pandering to the illegal alien lobby was done, according to proponents, to promote “evangelism” among Hispanics. Okay, exactly what kind of faith are these Hispanics going to be saved to? A faith that teaches its followers to deliberately break the law and expect to be rewarded as a result? So much for the “wages of sin is death.” It will, of course, be much easier to believe the new SBC gospel, “the wages of sin are citizenship, food stamps, welfare and subsidized housing” but then what kind of disciples will such converts make?

To the SBC’s credit, it did adopt a resolution opposing the sale of the new, gender-neutral NIV translation in SBC bookstores. For this, the SBC should be applauded. By changing the very words of Scripture to make them politically correct, the NIV has essentially told God that he’s sexist, out of date and out of touch and needs to get his mind right on the whole gender thing.

Here’s hoping that Rev. Mohler will reconsider his position on homosexuality and choice, and that the SBC will reconsider its position on illegal aliens. And I’m guessing there are a lot of faithful Southern Baptist churchgoers who are hoping the same thing.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

Here are some other posts with Adrian Rogers:

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 13)

Many Kings and important people in the Bible are also verified by secular documents. From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by  such writers as  John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when in fact the Bible […]

Candidate #3:Donald Trump Republican Presidential Hopefuls(Part 1)(Charlie Rich, Famous Arkansan)

Donald Trump at CPAC Conference 2011 David Gibson in his article “Donald Trump, Family Values Conservative–Believe it or not,” PoliticsDaily.com, wrote about a month ago: Donald Trump stole the show on the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference — stealing the spotlight is his specialty, after all — and he did it by […]

Ronald Wilson Reagan Part 8 (Edwin Meese on Reagan)

President Reagan and Vice President Bush pose in the Oval Office with the administration’s Cabinet in February 1981. Pictured from left, front row: Alexander Haig, Reagan, Bush, Caspar Weinberger. Back row, from left: Raymond Donovan, Donald Regan, Terrel Bell, David Stockman, Andrew Lewis, Samuel Pierce Jr., William French Smith, James Watt, Jeane Kirkpatrick, counselor Edwin […]

Is God responsible for evil, many Arkansas Times bloggers say yes!!(Part 3)

Below is a post from the Arkansas Times Blog that I am responding to: Who is a better person? The one who helps their fellow man and does what is right because they it’s the right thing to do, or one who treats people well only because they are threatened with an eternal punishment? Posted […]

Avril Lavigne commits “the fool’s sin” in front of family crowd in Tampa (Avril and the Book of Ecclesiastes Part 1)

Tampa Bay Rays apologize for Avril Lavigne TMZ reported: According to local reports, Avril’s mic didn’t work at the start of her show … and she responded to the cavalcade of boos by yelling obscenities at crowd. Rays rep Rick Vaughn tells TMZ, “The Rays demand profanity-free performances from all of our concert performers and […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (part 22)

 The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 4 In the next few days I will be sharing portions of the article “Archaeology and the new Atheism:The Plausibility of the Biblical Record,” Apologetic Press. Dewayne Bryant is the author and in the first portion he notes: […]

Kate Middleton and Prince William: Marriage made in Heaven? (Part 30)

    Prince William and Kate moved in together about a year ago. In this clip above the commentator suggested that maybe Prince Charles and Princess Diana would not have divorced if they had lived together before marriage. Actually Diana was a virgin, and it was Charles’ uncle (Louis Mountbatten) that gave him the advice that […]

Atheists confronted: How I confronted Carl Sagan the year before he died

In today’s news you will read about Kirk Cameron taking on the atheist Stephen Hawking over some recent assertions he made concerning the existence of heaven. Back in December of 1995 I had the opportunity to correspond with Carl Sagan about a year before his untimely death. Sarah Anne Hughes in her article,”Kirk Cameron criticizes […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 21)

The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 3 From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by  such writers as  John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when […]

Is the Bible historically accurate? (Part 20)

The Authenticity of the Bible – The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict – Josh McDowell Part 1 From time to time you will read articles in the Arkansas press by  such writers as  John Brummett, Max Brantley and Gene Lyons that poke fun at those that actually believe the Bible is historically accurate when […]

 

June 17, 2011 – 4:07 pm Categories: Adrian Rogers | Post a comment

Romney have a chance with evangelicals?

Dr. Richard Land on Mitt Romney

Does Mitt Romney Have a Prayer with Evangelicals?

By Friday, June 3, 2011
When Mitt Romney makes his appearance at Ralph Reed’s Faith & Freedom Conference Friday evening in Washington, he won’t exactly be headed into the lion’s den—but it might seem that way to him. A Pew Research study released on Thursday showed that Romney has the most potential appeal of any candidate in the GOP field for 2012. But the key word there is “potential.” Twenty-five percent of all voters say they would be less likely to support a candidate who is Mormon, like Romney. And a full third of white evangelicals express an aversion to Mormon candidates.

Those numbers are essentially unchanged from four years ago, when Romney first ran for the GOP nomination. That’s bad news for the former Massachusetts governor, whose supporters have often argued that suspicion about the Mormon faith would fade as voters became familiar with a Mormon candidate. White evangelicals don’t have vague anti-Mormon prejudices—they have very specific theological disputes that can’t be overcome by personality or even shared positions on social issues. Many believe, and are told in their churches, that Mormons are cult members and not Christians.

Romney does not have the luxury of ignoring white evangelicals, although he has indicated that he may not contest the Iowa caucuses, which are dominated by social conservatives, as seriously as he did in 2008. White evangelicals have steadily become the largest single bloc that selects the Republican presidential nominee—in 2008, they made up 44% of all GOP primary voters. (Would Newt Gingrich be better off running as a gay man?)

The Romney campaign did its best to head off that anti-Mormon bias in 2008 by gathering endorsements from evangelical leaders like Chuck Colson and working with evangelical PR professional Mark DeMoss to communicate with the community. Romney even gave a speech in December 2007 in which he promised that he would not take orders from church leadership in Salt Lake if elected president. It was essentially an updated version of the same promise JFK felt obligated to make to Baptist leaders in 1960, distancing himself from Catholic leadership in Rome.

At the same time, however, Romney had to deal with vicious whispering campaigns and outright attacks on his faith. In South Carolina, many Republicans received bogus Christmas cards, purporting to be from the Romney family, that cited controversial passages from the Book of Mormon. Others received an eight-page anonymous document that described Mormonism as a religion built on hoaxes and compared founder Joseph Smith to the Prophet Mohammed. An e-mail circulated among Republicans, urging them to “trust your instincts” about Mormonism: “Those dark suspicions you hide deep inside yourself about Mormonism are trying to tell you something.” (PHOTOS: Romney on the presidential campaign trail)

Perhaps the most damaging attacks were not anonymous, but from religious leaders who simply told their flocks that Romney was not a Christian and that they could not vote for a Mormon. The pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas declared in a sermon that “Even though [Romney] talks about Jesus as his Lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult.” Florida evangelist Bill Keller wrote a widely-circulated commentary titled “A Vote for Romney is a Vote for Satan.”

The attacks worked, and Romney’s past qualified position on abortion as governor of Massachusetts only deepened the distrust. By the time he dropped out of the race in early February 2008, Romney had gathered just over 20% of the white evangelical vote. (Romney makes it official: “Barack Obama has failed America”)

But now he’s back, fully aware of the attacks he’ll face, particularly if he appears to be the frontrunner going into next year’s primary season. ConservativeHQ.com, the site run by conservative godfather Richard Viguerie, has already claimed that a majority of Tea Partiers would vote for a third-party candidate in 2012 if Romney is the GOP nominee. Looking to wound Romney’s candidacy before he can take command of the field, evangelical Christian author Warren Smith released an essay last week calling Mormonism a “false and dangerous religion” and arguing that a Mormon president would threaten Christianity.

And then there’s popular culture, which just can’t seem to give Romney a break. The HBO series “Big Love” about polygamous Mormons passing as a regular suburban family premiered right around the same time Romney launched his first presidential bid. The Broadway smash hit of this spring is “The Book of Mormon,” a religious satire by the creators of “South Park” that does not exactly depict Mormonism as part of mainstream America. (See Romney’s top 10 gaffes of 2008.)

The best thing Romney has going for him is that evangelical voters may have no other options. No candidate currently in the race has the appeal of Mike Huckabee, the Baptist minister who inspired enthusiasm among evangelical voters in the 2008 primaries. And most of Romney’s declared and presumed opponents leave voters either yawning or slightly queasy. (One prospective rival, Jon Huntsman, is also a Mormon.) The same Pew poll found that nearly 40% of GOP voters said there was “no chance” they would ever vote for Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin. By comparison, only 18% of Republicans said they would never consider backing Romney. Some of those voters who don’t want to support a Mormon realize that they may have to.

Updated at 3:39 p.m.

Other posts on Romney:

Candidate #9 Mitt Romney, Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part Four, 7 Questions Christians Must Ask Before Voting For A Mormon Part C)

Romney’s Faith & Politics Speech (Part 3) This is part 3 of 3 of Governor Mitt Romney’s speech on his Mormon Faith and Politics at the George HW Bush Presidential Library in Texas. __________________________________________________________ The following is written by Rev Sherwood Haisty Jr. of Santa Monica, California. Sherwood has pastored churches in Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee […]

Candidate #9 Mitt Romney, Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part three, 7 Questions Christians Must Ask Before Voting For A Mormon Part B)

Huckabee Apologizes To Mitt Romney For Mormon Question At Des Moines University, 12/12/2007 __________________________________________ The following is written by Rev Sherwood Haisty Jr. of Santa Monica, California. Sherwood has pastored churches in Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee and California and currently he is the process of finishing up his Masters degree at the Masters Seminary.  I personally […]

Candidate #9 Mitt Romney, Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part two, 7 Questions Christians Must Ask Before Voting For A Mormon Part A))

Richard Land on Mitt Romney and Mormonism Hannity & Colmes. _____________________________ Deseret News reported yesterday Mitt Romney To Officially Announce Presidential : Mitt Romney will officially launch his presidential candidacy next week in New Hampshire. The Washington Post says: “Romney, who is regarded as the race’s (Republican) frontrunner, will formally announce his presidential campaign next Thursday, June 2 in […]

Candidate #9 Mitt Romney, Republican Presidential Hopefuls (Part 1)

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Possible 2012 presidential hopeful, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks to a group of small business owners on the economy during a visit to Meetze plumbing in Irmo, S.C. Saturday May, 21, 2011 Jim Davenport wrote for the Associated Press on May 21: COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina wasn’t kind to […]

June 17, 2011 – 8:46 am Categories: Uncategorized | Comments (2)