Andrew Sullivan is: pro-tax-cuts, pro-budget-cuts, anti-deficit-spnding, pro-Iraq-war, pro-business, pro-big-pharma, pro-social-security-privatization, anti-socialism, anti-hate-crimes-laws (even for gays), anti-affirm-action, pro-vouchers, generally pro-small-govt.

Sounds like a principled conservative in the mold of Barry Goldwater to me, and I don't agree with the guy on 90% of his issues. Oh, but he made two cardinal mistakes: being gay (he should have chosen to be hetero, ya know), and showing disloyalty to the Bush admin for critisizing them on the horrible post-war-planning, horrible fiscal policy, and hyper-pseudo-religiosity.

Ambra, you are so way more of a Republican than you even know.

Republicans have continuously bashed Demos for marginalizing moderate/conservative in their own party like Lieberman...
yet it seems the conservative blogosphere is in a purge mode of anyone deviating from the party line.

By the way, I wanted to point out that NOT all conservatives want to push Sully out of the conservative tent... it's ONLY the religious/social conservative end of the party... the other half (economic conservatives but social liberals/moderates) are quite fine with him being under the conservative banner (that is, the Barry Golwater conservatives).

I have to admit it will be quite entertaining to see the two ends visciously duke it out given that there will be no obvious successor to Bush in 2008 (first OPEN contest since the 50's, I think)... unfortunately, the Demos are in pathetic shape as well and won't be able to capitalize on it.

As expected, jab, I knew you'd stick up for Sully. What exactly makes me "so more Republican than I know," I am unsure of. I will however let you live in that happy little world.

Ambra,

I read the article on the evolution of sex... pretty interesting stuff. So what exactly qualifies you to declare this research coming out of CalTech, NASA, and JPL to be "scientific garble"?

On a related note... IMAX theaters in some states are now refusing to show science movies that bring up evolution or astrophysics because it MIGHT offend the sensibilities of religious conservatives... Mind you, NOT ALL conservatives, nor even all religious conservatives, oppose evolution and astrophysics... and mind you, no one is being FORCED to pay money and go into the theater...

Whenever I hear that someone is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" I immediately think that translates to "selfish and greedy."

Whenever I hear that someone is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" I immediately think that translates to "selfish and greedy."

Now that'll preach.

And Jab in my book, Scientific garble is any type of hypothesizing about the origin of man that fails to take into account the real beginning. Although I find it very funny that we automatically assume astute credibly from NASA, JPL and Cal Tech. Because you know, they could never have ulterior motives or anything silly like that.

Hey, what's wrong with callin' 'em records?

Truth: I have call-waiting. I know what mp3s are. And I STILL don't have logins to WAshington Times and New York Times.

Somehow, haven't found the need for it.

What I want to know is, has anyone ever called themselves fiscally liberal but socially conservative?

P.S. I agree with Byron.

Mr. Kelso,

Yes, there is such a group: the working class/blue colar/union-family branch of the Democratic party... historically, they have been socially conservative, but very much in favor of a liberal socioeconomic safety net... although the GOP has been quite successful in recent years of luring them away based on social issues...

Ambra, the reason we attribute automatic credulity to NASA, the JPL, and all those tech and airline firms in and near Seattle, is that their theories (i.e. Newton's on gravity, Franklin's on electricity, Galileo's on the positions of the planets) have stood up to centuries of testing. A theory, despite the contemporary misuse of the term, is not a hypothesis. Telescopes, MRI's, excavations, x-rays, and fossils have backed the Cal Tech'ers up.

Ambra opined:
"And Jab in my book, Scientific garble is any type of hypothesizing about the origin of man that fails to take into account the real beginning."

In other words... "if it doesnt follow a LITERAL reading of Genesis, it must be wrong... i already KNOW the answers, I don't need no stinkin' science... the only science I need is what the Bible tells me."

Next time you're in need of a doctor and cutting edge serious medical care (knock on wood, I would never wish that on anyone), let them know that you don't believe in science because scientists have "ulterior motives"...

O.K. Sarcasm off. Seriously though... I REALLY don't understand SOME Christians' opposition to evolution and the Big Bang... one can believe in God AND believe that he created the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern the natural world. I never got the memo that believing in salvation through Jesus necessitates me giving up my brain... I mean, God gave me my ability to think and reason.

Does anyone know how much time elasped between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? I didn't think so. I believe God created the universe, period. How He did it I don't know. I do know He SPOKE things into existence. Now, what happened after He spoke? Could there have been a cataclysmic explosion (Big Bang)? Since (science says) the universe is 13,700,000,000 years old, I am a few days short of having witnessed it. I just believe that God did it. He set the wheels in motion and created something with unpredictible (for us) order.

Being a born-again believer does not require one to become mindless as some would suggest. I just happen to believe that all knowledge is subject to God, not the other way around. I also firmly believe that the more science discovers, the harder time they will have denying the Greatest Scientist Of All Time: God.

Since Spring has sprung, it will soon be warm enough to trot out the shorts and tees. Most of the tees I wear will be Christian-themed. I don't do this to get any particular reaction, but if it generates a comment or starts a conversation, there is a ministry opportunity for me. Or, if I am having a cruddy day, maybe a ministry moment for someone else.

I suppose there could come a time when some capitalist money grubber who doesn't know or love God could put out an article of clothing that just gets it all wrong in search of the almighty dollar, but I am not worried about that. Wait: the image of the name JESUS emblazoned across some young woman's denim-clad fanny just crossed my mind. Failing that though, it would be hard to screw it up if they are using truly scripturally-based themes.

Look at Christian music. The beloved hymns of the church often had tunes that mimicked the popular somgs of the day. Why? To get folks to listen! The message of the Gospel wasn't diluted. Andre Crouch had some folks all up in arms back in the 70s (so I hear). But no Andre Crouch, no Fred Hammond. Man, my truck speakers would have a fit!

I think that Jesus should be proclaimed any and everywhere. ESPECIALLY outside of the confines of the physical church building. The idea has great potential. Shoot, everything else is displayed, so why not the Lord Jesus Christ?

>What's worse is this scientific garble that >declares the origin of sex an "ancient
> mystery." Adam and Eve got busy. It's as
> simple as that.

You had me, then you lost me. Favorites->Organize Favorites->Delete

Well, Jack Pharr, glad we established this early. Best not to entertain the squeamish. If that's all it takes to send you packing, you and I probably aren't a good fit.

Thanks for reading as far as you did,
Ambra