10/11/04 Do you have a place where
you can't compromise?
Dallas Managed News has two
interesting columns on mainstream Protestant churches becoming anti-Israel:
A Jewish-Christian rift? Liberal churches
have become irrationally hostile to Israel;
Liberal churches have become irrationally hostile to Israel
October 9, 2004
in New York, representatives of leading Jewish organizations met with
officials of the liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) to discuss a widening
rift between Jews and the mainline Protestant church, sparked particularly
by the church's decision this summer to consider divestment of companies
doing business with Israel ? as if the Jewish state were the moral
equivalent of apartheid South Africa. ...
Liberals don't like to be
judgmental except when they are dealing with individuals or organizations or
even nations who have firm convictions about right and wrong, good and bad and
staying the course. Then, liberals are quick to be judgmental and
Liberals like to find a common area of agreement, which means the strong side gives
up something they've won and the weak side gets something they did not earn.
A Jewish-Christian rift? Mainline Protestants
have become more supportive of Israel;
Mainline Protestants have become more supportive of Israel
I don't buy it, but that's what some
wonder now that the Presbyterian Church (USA) decided this summer to
consider divesting its holdings in companies that do business in Israel. The
speculation also stems from a study the Institute of Religion and Democracy
recently released. It claims mainline churches, like the Presbyterian Church
(USA) and the United Methodist Church, place excessive attention on Israel's
human rights situation. ...
Having never been a
Presbyterian, I can't speak to their position, but until a couple of years ago I
considered myself a Methodist for over 15 years (after giving up on the Southern
Baptist Convention). McKenzie's phrase "excessive attention on
Israel's human rights situation" is exactly on point.
|Israel places its
attention on self-preservation and survival. They know their enemy, and they
know what they have to do to continue to exist. Some may think Jews should
all give up and give the land over to the Palestinians, who would then rule the
country fairly and treat all Jews humanely, as they sit around the camp fire
singing "kumbya". Palestinians don't even treat each other
fairly and humanely.
During Vietnam, I went into the Air Force and was sent to a
remote tour at Cigli AB, Turkey. That guaranteed my second tour to be in
With my friends in the Army and
getting their butts shot at, it did not seem appropriate for me to be in a
less combative service and avoid it all.
volunteered to go from Turkey to Viet Nam and
spent one year at Tan Son Nhut AB outside of Saigon.
I drew my line in the sand.
I'm not going to go any further with the Presbyterians vs. Israel thing other than to
point out the danger of disloyalty and incremental slips toward chaos and
anarchy and why we need lines in the sand.
|In Texas, a few hundred under-armed men drew a line in the sand to stand up to Santa
Anna at the Alamo. Sure, they died, but they tied up Santa Anna and gave
Sam Houston time to accumulate 750 fighters and prepare to defeat Santa Anna's
1500 at San Jacinto. The Texican's sacrifice at the Alamo was a rallying
cry for the Texicans at San Jacinto, where 750 men defeated an army of 1500 and
ended the war.
Battle of San Jacinto.
Kudos to you on this article. You definitely struck a nerve
with me. I don't think it was exactly the one you were aiming for, but
you struck a nerve.
We are going to have to disagree on some of the particulars,
but we do agree on the most profound point of your article.
You stuck your finger right smack
in the middle of the rotten core of what is the biggest threat to us
locally, at the state level, at the national level, and even the
international level, as well as a society and a culture.
The men at the Alamo drew a line in the sand.
They lost their lives, but won the war for other Texicans.
Last year, a school board trustee sent out a mailer against me in the District 6
council race. The content of the mailer was not as important as the fact
that an elected official, well-versed in election law brazenly ignored the
rules. An individual can only contribute $1000 per campaign (and a second
$1000 in a runoff). That's the rule!
Some people follow election rules, but more and more -- many do not.
Public officials who are supposed to enforce election rules, do not. People
who run their campaigns according to the rules are tying one hand behind their
back, while the crooks are free to do as they please. So, there's a line that some cross and others do not. What
would you do?
||Would you follow the restrictions of non-enforced rules and give your opponent
||Would you take the low road and cross over to the dark side?
||Would you call attention to the wrong-doing and lack of enforcement by public
officials and face ridicule and retaliation?
You know what I did and am doing -- because that's what I do.
one of those judgmental Neanderthals, I have learned it's easier to live life coloring inside the lines than to waste time inventing new
rules or figuring out ways to evade or stretch or even violate old rules.
Not being judgmental and law-abiding is eventually as hard to sustain as lying. After you tell a bunch
of lies, you forget to whom you told which lie. Once you get into a pattern
of violating a rule here and there, you forget why you bother to
follow any rules. Worse, when someone does something more serious
than your minor infractions, you are not in a position to call their hand -- assuming you would be willing to draw a line in the sand after all your
excursions into the mud zone.
I am no fan of Michael Savage, but he was a TV cable station discussing Howard Stern (no fan of his either) leaving free radio for
the non-censored world of satellite radio. The interviewer was surprised when
Savage was not supportive of Stern's so-called strike against censorship.
Savage said "Whenever I drive my car, I have to stay inside the lines."
It was one of those moments where you think -- "well, yes."
That's what I've been trying
to verbalize, that's just a simple truth.
In a civilized world, we must have lines. When 2 people
hang out together, they work out a set of rules for their relationship or they
stop hanging out together. They don't necessarily set out a tablet of
rules, but they figure out the boundaries of the
friendship or whatever relationship they have.
When couples marry, few think of sharing their spouse with a
third party after the wedding. Our restrictive, judgmental society
views marriage as TWO not THREE people. That's our rule and our
law, and those are the lines in which we expect married people to live.
Rules and laws can change, but the rule or law should be
CHANGED not VIOLATED.
Same thing with friendships. The longer the friendship, the more clear are the
lines of the relationship. You have common areas where you are
in sync and other areas, less important to either of you
where you have different opinions. The more passionate you are about
certain positions, the less likely you can forgive the friend for differing or
crossing your line, particularly when they knew how you feel before they crossed
It's like topless bars and massage parlors. If you think prostitution is
OK, you are not likely to be a friend of mine and you probably are OK with topless bars and massage parlors -- unless
they are near your home or business or some other property you own. In
that case, your
opposition will not be based on a question of right or wrong, but on economic
impact on your personal holdings. You can be as adamant as the person
opposing prostitution from a morality plank, and you have drawn a line in the
It may make you uncomfortable having a position on anything significant, but you
will be officially out of the gray area (the mud zone) when you take a stand.
Gary Turner's Crime and Politics (Vol 6 Issue 3), Special Edition, has an
article by Charles Brown, who asks:
Legalized Prostitution Rampant by Charles Brown:
As I drive around Northwest Dallas observing the explosion of
massage parlors, rub down places, prostitution hotels, and Asian bathhouses
I wonder how long the city of Dallas will allow legalized prostitution to
run rampant. Shouldn't enforcement of the proper certificate of
occupancy be a basic instrument to manage business in a city like Dallas?
It seems apparent that the City has lost control over the issuance of CO's.
Otherwise, how can you explain allowing the legalized prostitution business
to explode over the past few years?...
If you live in some area where
you have one or two hooker haunts, you might find a route to and from your home to avoid them. We are not so lucky in NW
Dallas. They are everywhere, even near our homes. We live with the impact of sex businesses
and the hookers who work in them, as well as the perverts who frequent them.
Bathhouses are more blatant about their services than topless clubs, but it's all the same.
Lowlifes who frequent
topless bars are the same losers who need the services of bathhouses.
Any grown man who would associate with any female who works in a topless bar or
bathhouse is a fool, insecure about women or doesn't really like women in the
Check out these come-ons that Crime and
Politics lists for the three typical
Ruby Spa (Walnut Hill) - with a
nude Asian hooker posing with her g-string outstretched, "Beautiful
International Girls Working, Sauna, Jacuzzi, Majic Oil Touch, Body Rubs"
Spring Shower (Walnut Hill) - with an Hispanic-looking hooker (full figure) with
the top of her dress pulled down and her fingers over her boobs, "Beautiful
Asian & Latin Girls, Luxurious Private Rooms, Clean Showers, Discreet Parking"
Julia Body Sense (Denton Drive) - with a mostly nude Asian hooker (squares over
strategics) with her finger in her mouth (Lolita style), "Body Shampoo, Sauna,
VIP Room, Jacuzzi".
There's a massage parlor in the same scummy NW Hwy strip center that houses
Platinum. Isn't there a 1000 ft separation between sex clubs?
Another city ordinance that no one enforces? This makes it very convenient
for the pervert who can't afford a topless hooker to do him to pop into
the massage parlor for a rubdown by a naked hooker. But, it's not prostitution.
Terrible Bolton put an unqualified female as Deputy Chief over NW Station who
was so incompetent that even a
scum bag like him had to replace her. That same unqualified woman
(promoted from Sgt to Deputy Chief) told some business owners on Royal Lane that
"it's better for the girls to be working in the bathhouses than on the streets
-- we've always had prostitution ...". Having a friend like her as the
Deputy Chief over the NW Substation is how many houses of prostitution got a
Still, you and I are responsible for this mess. We are
afraid to take a stand that might hurt someone's feelings even when that same person
is not afraid of hurting our feelings by doing what they do.
I live between the lines of I-35 and Webb Chapel, one block South of Walnut
Hill. The lines I live between are full of sex clubs and the perverts who
frequent them and the hookers who service the perverts.
I've got options. I can raise cane and demand our public officials do as
little as enforce our zoning laws. I can move. I can do nothing and
watch things deteriorate further.
As I said, you and I are responsible for this mess because we are afraid of being
||We are afraid
to say it's not OK to lump massage parlors and bathhouses into the same
class as barber shops, hair salons and manicure salons.
||We are afraid
to say it's not OK to operate a house of prostitution and call it a massage
||We are afraid
to call the employees of topless bars and bathhouses the hookers and pimps
that they are.
||We are afraid
to condemn people we know who associate with the hookers in topless bars and
We have a City Attorney who is
unwilling to step out of the gray and actually
do her job to enforce our city ordinances, very black and white rules.
She's a part of the problem.
A bigger part of our problem are those who think everything is open to
interpretation, discussion or rationalization. They will not draw a line
between the truth and a lie. They will not decide what is right or wrong,
because that would be judgmental.
If you are locked in the gray zone and are blind to black and white, you are the
problem. You are the base for the bad guys to do their wrong stuff.
You give them the OK to behave badly. You give public officials the
authority to not do their job because you are not demanding they do what we pay
them to do. You give young people the impression that there are no rights
or wrong, which is probably worse than anything else your acquiescence causes.
Are you comfortable in the mud of the gray zone or can you draw a line in the
sand and stand fast against the bad guys, big and small?