Out of the Blue

We had another ugly incident recently on our local doggie walking trail. We have taken to bringing our canine companions there in the afternoons after Hudson the wonder dog's run-in with an aggressive doggie. Unfortunately, there is no time to find the trail completely unpopulated, and on our most recent visit, we encountered some folks walking a large and small doggie of their own. Anticipating trouble, I grabbed Huddie by her collar, but in an unusual twist, the larger of the strange dogs went after Gunnar, who is normally very well versed in the art of defusing other dogs. In this case his defense mechanism was to cower and cry, so I needed to intervene. Luckily, after briefly grabbing at the head area of the doggie battle, I recalled the black and blue mark under my thumbnail that still hasn't completely grown out from my first amateur attempt at breaking up a dog fight. By this point the other dog's owner was still not doing anything helpful (jerk) but I recalled the more proper technique, so I grabbed his dog by the tail and pulled him out of the fray. Normally both dogs should be removed by their respective owners to prevent the free dog from attacking the captive one, but Gunnar has no bloodlust, and was more than happy to be rescued (shaken, but none the worse for his encounter). The other danger in grabbing a strange dog by the tail is that he may turn on you. Luckily for me this guy was still more concerned with Gunnar, and didn't seem to notice me at all (maybe this was lucky for the dog, I probably would have started swinging him by the tail had he come after me).

Sadly, I think this marks the end of our trips to that trail. It's just not worth the risks.

Hard Bitten Links! Thanks Mike Martinez and Ant.
Stories: Katrina Aftermath Includes Puppy Boom.
Barbie Accused of Being Part of the Transgender Movement.
Science: Surprises make soccer the best sport.
Images: Potato Salad on Dubs.
Chocolate 2.
Media: Amusement Park Ride Collapses. Repeatedly, in case you weren't going to have nightmares.
Military Flare Dumping.
Ruff Landing.
Auction: Two-Headed Snake for Sale for $150,000.
Follow-up: Board Rescinds 'Intelligent Design' Policy.
Teh Funny: PvPonline. Thanks Kennett.
View : : :
47.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 4, 2006, 22:12
Tim
47.
Re: No subject Jan 4, 2006, 22:12
Jan 4, 2006, 22:12
Tim
 
It occurs to me, that we here in Norway, where we in theory do not have a separation between church and state, in practice have a more separated church and state than the US, where this separation is supposedly guaranteed by the constitution...

Just a thought.

In the context of the American Experiment, secular and atheistic do not mean the same thing. We are a secular nation, but not an atheistic nation. Secular refers to an authority that exists outside of or apart from the authority of the church. We certainly have that in America. The church official cannot of his own authority set binding public policy on people who do not recognize his authority. The people elect the leaders they want to set the binding public policy. Likewise, the political leader cannot dictate the belief or practice of any church. The church as an institution and the state as an institution are autonomous.

An atheistic state would, by definition, be hostile to religion. The very word atheist denotes one who is (a theos) against God. This is itself a religious stance. An atheistic nation is one that strives to eliminate all trace of God worshippers from the public square. We have seen some of this in Communist countries. Brutality and repression result.

It is possible to be a Christian secularist. In the context of the gospel, the word secular carries a negative connotation (and rightly so) – being a synonym for materialistic worldliness and all its evils. However, in the political arena, Christians need to recognize secular as a term denoting the American belief (Constituted in the 1st Amendment) that your church cannot tell my church what to do as a church. This is the protection for which Isaac Backus fought. (Backus was the first prominent Baptist in America and the father of the US concept of religious liberty, though not the phrase "separation of church and state"). This is a protection freedom-loving American Christians have died to protect over the history of our nation.

But it is not the Christians who are most in need of this recognition. It is the anti-Christians (NOW, ACLU, Robert Reich). The 1st Amendment does not exalt atheism over other religious beliefs in the United States of America. As much as it protects atheists from over-reaching religionists, it protects people of faith from the atheists who would like to see them removed.

The atheistic state must be fought at all costs. Christians have the right to participate as citizens in public life with all the rights and privileges atheists do. Christians have the right to debate and set public policy through their elected representatives just like non-Christians do. Christians have the right to set limits on aberrant and harmful behavior just like Green party candidates do.

They do not have the right to force all Americans to worship Jesus Christ. In the same way, atheists do not have the right to ban religious speech, concepts, and politics – merely because they are made, held, or practiced by Christians.

It is time the increasingly vocal atheistic voice started practicing some tolerance and rejoin the community of patriotic Americans who agree to work together in a secular state for the benefit of all.

I think that about does it.
___________________
I'll sell your memories for fifty pounds per year.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
4.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
6.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
7.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
8.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
9.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
14.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
10.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
11.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
13.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
      Re: Doggie tamer
26.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
28.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
5.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
16.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
17.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
19.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
2.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
3.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
12.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
15.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
18.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
20.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
21.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
22.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
24.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
25.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
43.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
23.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
27.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
29.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
30.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
31.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
32.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
34.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
35.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
37.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
36.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
39.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
40.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
42.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
 47.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
    Re: No subject
48.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
     Re: No subject
50.
Jan 5, 2006Jan 5 2006
      Re: No subject
51.
Jan 5, 2006Jan 5 2006
     Re: No subject
52.
Jan 5, 2006Jan 5 2006
      Re: No subject
55.
Jan 5, 2006Jan 5 2006
       Re: No subject
53.
Jan 5, 2006Jan 5 2006
      Re: No subject
54.
Jan 5, 2006Jan 5 2006
       Re: No subject
58.
Jan 5, 2006Jan 5 2006
       Re: No subject
56.
Jan 5, 2006Jan 5 2006
     Re: No subject
57.
Jan 5, 2006Jan 5 2006
      Re: No subject
41.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
45.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
46.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
49.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
     Re: No subject
44.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
33.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
38.
Jan 4, 2006Jan 4 2006
59.
Jan 5, 2006Jan 5 2006
60.
Jan 5, 2006Jan 5 2006