At game night this week I was informed that a friend of mine who is not religious is considering becoming a Jehovah’s Witness.

I live across the street from 3 generations of Jehovah’s Witness, they are some of the nicest people in the neighborhood and their imminent departure in my opinion is a huge loss to the entire block.

That doesn’t mean to say that theologically they aren’t out there, they ARE, but having the theology right is small comfort if you don’t follow through.

I’m a little torn about it because I know enough about the theology to see the gaping holes, and they have the weakness of all protestant sects in terms of history, origins of the bible and the church fathers. But my friend is not very religious and in the 30 years I’ve known him never has been, maybe he needs to walk before he runs.

But when I asked him about it, and made my own objections to the theology known, he came back with the “Catholic use of Father” business. No offense to my pal but that old chestnut is pretty weak.

So for his benefit I include links here here here and here debunking it but I will only directly quote Fr. Ray Suriani who does the best job of the lot:

“But the real question is: In doing this, did Jesus intend for his words in verse 9 to be understood literally? Or was he speaking in a figurative way? If he did mean them literally, of course, then you’re absolutely correct in your assertion, and we Catholics should stop calling priests ‘Father’ immediately!

“However, it seems to me that if Jesus did intend a literal interpretation, then he certainly would have followed his own rule. That sounds reasonable, does it not? He wouldn’t have given his disciples (and all of us) a commandment—not to call anyone on earth ‘father’—that he didn’t intend to keep himself.

“But you see, when we examine the wider context of this verse (i.e., the rest of the New Testament), what we find is that Jesus did not observe this rule himself! For example, in this very same chapter of Matthew (in verses 30 and 32 to be exact), Jesus uses the word “father” to refer to men here on earth! Speaking to the scribes and Pharisees in verse 30, our Lord says, ‘And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ Then, in verse 32, he says, ‘Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.’

He then points to a few other points in the new testament where this takes place:

“Jesus did the same thing at other times in his ministry: he referred to people on this earth as ‘fathers’. Just read your King James Version and see!

“And so did the writers of the New Testament! St. John, for example, addresses ‘fathers’ more than once in the second chapter of his first letter.

“St. Paul calls Abraham ‘the father of us all’ in chapter 4 of his letter to the Romans. And then, in 1 Corinthians 4, he goes so far as to speak of himself as a father—a spiritual father—to the Corinthian people. Can you imagine? Of course, that makes perfect sense to every Catholic, because St. Paul was a priest! As a priest, he was a spiritual father to all the people in the various churches he founded.

“The bottom line is this: If Jesus intended a literal interpretation to his words, ‘Call no one on earth your father’, and if violating the words of Jesus is a sin, then you’re forced into a position where you have to say that Jesus himself sinned! You also have to say that St. John and St. Paul sinned when they wrote the words of Sacred Scripture.

Bottom line: This is a bogus argument!

My friend is a great guy. I’ve known him since we were about 15. He is a fine fellow and he will be no less fine if he decided to become a Jehovah’s witness. I’m proud to call him my friend today and I’ll be no less proud to so till the day we die!

…Ed Killgore talks about the subject a tad, and on Morning Joe Howard Dean (who has a Washington Post Op-ed today) said he would support Obama but without enthusiasm .

Glenn Reynolds had this to say on the subject.

How long before we hear “we were all had” about Barack Obama? When it becomes unmistakable that the narrative was a lie, I’d guess.

And of course the people who cried loudest how important Obama was to the country and the world will forget what they said.

I’m sure it is unrelated but do you recall the Ron Howard, Henry Winkler/ Andy Griffith video from last election. Try to find it online on video sites, you will find it removed due to funny or die’s copyright claim…then look on funny or die and find it removed altogether.

Down the memory hole it goes. Never to be seen again.

Then try to find it on funny or die and it is removed. On other sites

…is revealed in the last paragraph of Michael Barone’s column in the Washington Examiner today:

it’s interesting that when Massachusetts Democrat Michael Capuano, fresh from a second-place finish in the primary for Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat, was asked to tell the Democratic caucus what he had learned on the campaign trail, he replied in two words: “You’re screwed.”

That’s about it.

I’m detecting a pattern here:

Your candidate dies before the election, decide “he” still qualifies for the ballot and appoint someone else!

You candidate is about to lose an election in the Senate? Fudge the rules and put a different one up, deadlines be damned!

Want to push Global warming and grab a big chunk of the worlds money? Fudge the data and the info.

Acorn supports your candidates but congress votes to cut off funding? Rule that Acorn has a constitutional right to those funds.

Conservatives use the rules of the senate to slow things down? Ignore them.

…about three hours into the reading, Sanders withdrew his amendment, and this stopped the reading of the bill — even without unanimous consent.

“In allowing Sanders to do that, it appears the parliamentarian has broken the standing rules of the Senate,”

The rule in question?

“Reading: Under Rule XV, paragraph 1, and Senate precedents, an amendment shall be read by the Clerk before it is up for consideration or before the same shall be debated unless a request to waive the reading is granted; in practice that includes an ordinary amendment or an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the reading of which may not be dispensed with except by unanimous consent, and if the request is denied the amendment must be read and further interruptions are not in order; interruptions of the reading of an amendment that has been proposed are not in order, even for the purpose of proposing a substitute amendment to a committee amendment which is being read. When an amendment is offered the regular order is its reading, and unanimous consent is required to call off the reading.” (Riddick’s Senate Procedure, P.43-44)

Notice a pattern here? Over and over the rules or the laws or the standards are not amenable to their liberal cause. So rather than changing the law, or the rules or the standards our liberal friends decide to ignore them or fudge them.

There is an important lesson for conservatives here. If in the senate they are willing to play with the rules to stop delaying tactics they will be willing to change the rules to pass this bill or any other. The only rules are to win right now, immediate gratification.

And realize this doesn’t just apply to republicans, remember the misogyny and the tactics used against Hillery Clinton during the primaries in 08? If conservatives had used them we would have been pariahs.

Conservatives better understand the rules of engagement because if we bring a shield to a sword fight we are going to get cut.

I really think this is symptomatic to a decision made just over a decade ago but I think that is a post for another day when I want to make a speech.