Diyala Province, Iraq — Modern technology is an amazing thing. Shortly after my arrival at Forward Operating Base Caldwell in eastern Diyala Province, my fellow staff officers and I were able to purchase a satellite dish from a departing unit, manhandle it up to the roof of our building, point it in the general direction of a commercial satellite, and — voila! — we’re surfing the net. In our precious spare time, we chat with our families, download the occasional song from iTunes, and even play an online game or two. As for me, well, I read the news.

Perhaps my perspective is overly colored by my current circumstances, but I can’t recall a time when there was more outrage over — and reverence for — mere words. Mini-scandals seem to erupt daily over this or that “offensive” comment. Words seem to mean everything — even when defining patriotism. Whether it’s declaring dissent the “highest form” of patriotism, defining true patriotism as “speaking out” on issues, or even debating the meaning and definition of patriotism based largely on political positions and public pronouncements, it seems that words and symbols have captured the field.

That’s not to say that words and symbols don’t matter. Of course they do. I have dedicated my civilian career to defending religious liberty and freedom of speech, our first freedoms. But words matter largely because they tend to persuade people to take (or not take) certain actions. Words are important, but it is in the actions we take that we see the true character and heart of an individual.

I have now been mobilized with the 2d Squadron, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment (LTC Paul T. Calvert, commanding) for more than eight months (251.5 days for those keeping score at home, and my wife and kids quite literally are), and I do not recall a single discussion or debate about patriotism. And it’s not like we don’t talk . . . a lot. We’ve had late night debates and even screaming arguments over politics, religion, the war, economics, and the best Will Ferrell comedy (it’s “Talladega Nights,” by the way, and if you disagree with me, please realize that I’m armed).

But we never really talk about patriotism. There’s no need for words, really. Over here, it’s the deeds that matter.

Read the rest here.

1. McCain can't stand Romney, in spite of the warm fuzzies they've expressed for each other since the primary ended.

2. He's a ... wait for it... you'll never guess this ... a Mormon.

3. He might overshadow McCain on the ticket.

4. Inaccurate and unfair accusations against Bain Capital might arise.

5. He might have an eye to 2012 and might not want to do what needs to be done in 2008 to win.

Well, I think yesterday's article was much more convincing, but there ya have it. The article is found here.

I, for one, am not getting on his bandwagon until I know who's number two.

(And please, concerned readers, don't write me e-mails about how awful the alternative is -- I'm still not there... hands over ears... Lalalalalalalala... not listening.... can't hear you.)

CHARLES responds: Yes, Nancy, I certainly think Sen. McCain's choice of a running-mate is terribly important and a good way to win over recalcitrant voters. But I still hope he picks a good person who is not named Mitt Romney.

First, as I mentioned, I have little confidence that whoever is elected in November will be part of a tremendous record of success. I feel much as if we are in 1976 -- our choices being a not-so-hot Republican and an utterly irresponsible Democrat. In either case, I would rather that Gov. Romney stay away from being tarred with the next administration's failures (much as Pres. Reagan stayed away after his primary challenge to Pres. Ford, after which there was similar vice-presidential talk).

Second, quite frankly, I am less than convinced that Sen. McCain's choice of Gov. Romney will in fact reassure the conservative base as is rumored. If the conservative base really loves Gov. Romney so much, how come he isn't the nominee? There's this idea in the media these days that he's the base's guy, and I don't question that that's true with a certain part of the base -- but I don't think he's widely popular or totally trusted. That's why he had the problems he did in the primary. I think they will arise again if he is selected as the vice-presidential nominee -- and it's also not clear to me that serving as Sen. McCain's #2 will ease his troubles with certain elements of the base, either. If anything, being associated with what are sure to be a number of leftist policy proposals of a McCain administration will bog him down further.

How's that glass for ya?

(You'll forgive me -- I am a partisan of Wawa.)

NANCY adds: Charles, Wawa! I love it. I used to walk to the Philly Wawa near our house every night when David was working late at our place on 9th and Chestnut to get ice cream. They sell an ice cream I've not seen anywhere else, at least not in the South. It was chocolate ice cream with chocolate chunks, with a thick layer of Dove dark chocolate on the top of it! So around eleven o'clock, I'd traipse down the hall, get into the elevator, and walk through the large cavernous lobby past Ed -- the doorman at the Benjamin Franklin House. (Seriously, check out that lobby!)

Every night, he'd say, "You taking an ice cream run?"

"Yep."

So he'd take his break, grab his cigarettes, and walk me the two or three blocks to the Wawa so I wouldn't be the next statistic on the news the next day. There were a few pretty high profile murders around our building during the years we were there. One right in front of our entrance.

A few months after we moved, I got word he hadn't come into work for a few successive days. When they finally went to check on him, they discovered he'd passed away in his apartment.

All this to say, every time I hear of a Wawa, I think of chocolate ice cream and cigarettes and the wonderful go-the-extra yard doorman and friend we had in Ed Collins.

UPDATE: Here's a photo of Mr. Ed with Camille. Every day when we walked home from school the kids ran to him and gave him a bear hug, this enormous man with tattooed hands.

The dog jumped and I bolted into the door, where no one stood. Austin ran into the room, and asked "What's wrong?"

"Did you hear that?"

"What?"

"Nothing."

"Whaaat?"

"Nothing."

He eyed me suspiciously. We'd been reading books every night before bed, and it left us all a little jittery. Is that really a bird, or part of the raven king's army trying to take over the neighborhood? Does that loud bang have an explanation, or do I need to look for our ammunition?

Of course, late June and early July in Tennessee is a wondrous place, especially on a cool summer night like this one. Large, striped firework tents pop up on every street corner, advertising things like "red neck rockets" and "screaming eagles."

You can't drive down the road at night without the night sky being lit up on both sides of the street, so perhaps I shouldn't have been shocked at tonight's blast for two houses down. Maybe three. The yards are so big that when the kids heard the successive loud noises they ran out of their bedrooms and out the door. Austin forgot his pants.

Yet another good thing about rural Tennessee -- no street lights.

The kids laid on their backs on the warm cement, looking at the stars with intermittent fireworks that would've been the highlight of the county productions when I was a kid. Enormous blasts, echoing through the night air. I could imagine which neighbors were annoyed and which were sitting out in the dark on their porches anxiously awaiting the next one. The kids listened to each others' stomach gurgle between the fireworks. They covered the dog's ears. They found the big dipper.

You couldn't quite see the neighbors, but -- if you listened -- you could hear whoops and hollers of approval wafting down the road.

When I forced them back to bed, Austin said, "If anyone ever comes to stay at our house because they're going somewhere that's too far to get to in a day and they need to spend the night...?"

"Yes?"

"I want to wear pants to bed."

NANCY asks: Charles, could you be more specific? I half-expected to click on that link and see a photo of Huckabee or something. Is that a "frustrated" ugh or a "I can't stand to draw this out anymore" ugh?

CHARLES replies: Frustrated, dear sister. Frankly, I don't want Gov. Romney anywhere near the train wreck that the next four years seems sure to be -- no matter who wins. There's your daily dose of optimism!

Of course, not all young evangelicals in the US are tied up with the Anglican Communion, so why is this so important? Look to the end:

There was no immediate response Sunday from the archbishop of Canterbury, the Episcopal Church in the United States or the Anglican Church of Canada. Some liberal American bloggers sought to play down the conservatives' actions, dismissing them as an attempt to hijack the Communion when, in their view, there are much more important issues for the church to confront, like poverty, AIDS and global warming.

Those three words -- "much more important" -- speak volumes.

What I mean is this: Nobody denies that these issues are important. Very important, in fact. And they are especially so to young evangelicals, as volumes of poll data show.

But are they the most important? Are they more important than tossing the Bible out the window as an authoritative document -- what we see in the church context here? Are they more important than the slaughter of millions of innocent babies, or the sexual sins whose ubiquitousness has played a huge role in the persistence of poverty in a number of populations -- the issues we see at play in the larger culture?

That is the dividing line. Are they not important, important, or the most important? Too often, conservatives are seen as thinking they're not important -- and the left errs in thinking they are the only thing that matters, God's law being just a distraction.

If conservative evangelicals are not going to lose the next generation -- which looks askance at us in unparalleled numbers -- we can't ignore issues like poverty, AIDS, and global warming. But we can't address them by forgetting about everything else. What's more, we can't make a cogent cultural case on family issues if we don't talk about poverty and AIDS -- because there's no better way to fight them than strong families.

We can't fall into the trap of being uncaring -- or even seeming uncaring, if we truly are not -- about these issues. But we also can't give heed to the lie that the topics conservative evangelicals have been talking about for three decades don't really matter -- as the quote above would suggest. And if we're really going to win, we'll marry the two "sets" of issues, because they really ought to be mutually reinforcing.

[A]s I understand him, Obama was pointing out why the words of Scripture do not provide a ready policy blueprint for modern American society. Indeed, many of us have grappled with how to arrive at a theologically informed and fair-minded reading of the Bible that takes its moral principles seriously without simplistically applying to our time the cultural norms of previous eras. The chief defect of Obama's speech was that he didn't provide more insight into how to navigate these theological waters.

It seems to me that Wehner is giving the Senator entirely too much credit here. While it surely requires a great deal of thoughtfulness to apply biblical principles to today's problems, that doesn't forgive Obama for his flippant comments about shellfish -- which defy even the most cursory application of Christian principles. Surely a man who has been attending a Christian church for decades knows of Jesus' words regarding Old Testament laws like these. In fact, forget that -- an Ivy League graduate could Google the matter before giving a major address.

Wehner goes on to say this:

The passage of the speech that prompted Dobson's "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution" and "lowest common denominator of morality" comments was this: "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. What do I mean by this? It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

Dobson paraphrased this as "unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe in." But that's not what Obama was saying at all. Rather, he was arguing that in a pluralistic nation like ours, politics depends on people of faith being able to persuade others based on common and accessible ground and appeals to reason -- which sounds entirely reasonable. Christians who oppose abortion can make an effective case by talking about sonograms, fetal development and the moral imperative to protect the most vulnerable. That doesn't mean one's faith shouldn't inform the question of abortion -- or, for that matter, war, poverty and other issues. After all, President Lincoln's argument against slavery was partly grounded in faith. But appeals to the Bible or church teaching aren't sufficient in a pluralistic nation. That's why Lincoln talked primarily about the Declaration of Independence.

I don't necessarily disagree with this -- at least as I read Wehner, he's saying a biblical appeal could be one (and likely not the majority) appeal made in the context of a wider-ranging argument. That's what Pres. Lincoln did.

But I do think Wehner's piece is too harsh toward Dobson -- who in turn was too harsh in tone toward Obama. I gather I disagree with Obama's speech just as much as Dobson does, but name-calling along the lines of "fruitcake" is not going to make us any converts in the culture -- and I just don't think it speaks well of the Savior we serve.

Further, I must say that we, as Dr. Dobson's brothers and sisters in Christ, should be wary about being eager to jump up and slam him whenever we have the chance. The man has done a lot for the American family, even if some of his recent political pronouncements have not been the best. I'm not saying Wehner indulges in this overeagerness, but I will confess that I am vulnerable to it -- and it's clear to me from inspecting the world in which we live that there are lots of people, some of them conservative evangelicals, who very inappropriately get their jollies from thumping him.

Mitt argued that traditional marriage is the ideal situation to rear a child. I heard Obama argue (I believe before the Illinois Senate) that it was necessary to allow an aborted infant, born alive, to die because saving the infant would turn abotion law on its head. Admitting that the aborted infant was a "person" with Constitutional rights would raise all kinds of legal issues re abortion. Sure, we should be prepared to argue our case, but some universal moral truths defy argument. Leaving a helpless infant to die is one of them even--if saving it would jeapardize a "woman's right to privacy."

I can barely type this without tearing up. Maybe it's because my 35-year-old son just had his first child yesterday. You know, my 35-year old son that was born in 1973.

I recall putting him to bed when he was about 8. His six-year-old brother was lying in the bed next to him. The 8-year-old asked me what abortion was. When I tried to explain it, I noticed the 6-year-old was lying on his back with tears rolling down his cheeks. "Why would someone kill their baby that Heavenly Father sent them?" he asked.

There are some things even a 6-year-old knows without a hearing a convincing argument. I'm sure the RNC or some 527 has the tape of Obama making these arguments. Very revealing of the man who would be our leader.

And John:

At some point in time it DOES come down to "Thus saith the Lord." I find it very entertaining to listen to some evangelicals trying to explain, for example, why marriage should be between a man and a woman. They talk about x thousands of years of history, and how it's better for the children based on this or that study, etc., but the bottom line, which they sometimes seem embarrassed or unwilling to venture, is simply because our Creator told us to arrange it like that.

At that point, the other team's argument becomes with God, and not with us. Who cares what we puny men and women believe, if God has already spoken to a particular issue clearly and plainly in His Word.

So I differ with Mr. Obama when he says that he cannot validate a policy against abortion by referencing Scripture, but must find other avenues to explain it to his diverse constituents. For moral issues where God has spoken, "Thus saith the Lord' is not just another argument, it is the best, and sometimes, the only argument!

Apologies to you both for posting so belatedly.

It’s about a soldier of merely average intelligence who gets thrown into the future and suddenly becomes the smartest man alive. It’s a cautionary tale of what will happen if we continue on our current track of mindless consumerism, selfishness, and soft educational demands. To get a flavor of what this director fears a Doctor might be like in the future, watch this (language warning):

Anyway, you can see why you might not want to see this at church. However, Wall-E and Idiocracy might be good to see successively for discussion purposes. Anyone in Columbia, Tennessee up for it?

Update:
Oh yeah... when you watch Wall-E, try to note the Biblical allusions. Camille and I had an interesting conversation about Noah afterwards. Very interesting.

Mr. Obama is for using tax dollars to fund abortions, and against restrictions on partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation protecting a child who was born alive despite an abortion.

It seems to me that Senator Obama's appeals to religious believers -- especially young evangelicals -- are premised on the idea that there are other issues that are important to us beyond abortion and marriage. That's true, and one reason young evangelicals are not as solidly in the Republican camp as our elders is that most GOP politicians miss this point.

But there's a huge difference between believing that there's more to public policy than two issues and believing that abortion is not a relevant issue. And given Senator Obama's extremist stand on the abortion issue, I don't see how anyone to whom a pro-life stance is even remotely important could support him. He's simply not even close to the center. You can't simply write him off on abortion, as if it's a wash that other issues can even out. His position is radical, and it is deeply offensive to God's law -- and I would even say, to common sense. I mean, killing children who are born alive?

It's worth noting, by the way, that while there is a clear generational divide on marriage issues -- and young evangelicals do want to hear something sensible about poverty, the environment, and other topics -- data have suggested that young evangelicals are just as pro-life as the Dobson generation.

None of this would bode terribly well for this adamantly pro-abortion candidate's outreach to us. But then again, at least he's trying -- which counts a lot for most people. (That's why there's hope for dunderheaded husbands like me!) Is his competitor? Well...

Thanks for posting that quote! I think Obama made some really good points, I just don't think he meant them in the way I'd like to interpret them---and that is a bit concerning. His attempt to parse bible verses is a little manipulative--citing radical ideas in Leviticus, etc--but I like his discussion about reason.

If religious people are going to argue for moral truths, we have to learn to talk like liberals. Obama calls for reason and effective argument, even in the face of universal truth. Just because we know something is true doesn't mean that we are good at selling that idea to people who don't share same foundation principles.

This is one place where Mitt Romney excelled in Massachusetts. When everybody was discussing the moral implications of Gay Marriage, he started defending marriage using liberal language--namely citing the rights of children (thankfully not the Treaty on the Rights of the Child... which is a big waste of ink). He defended marriage as an institution reserved for one man and one woman because that is the ideal atmosphere for raising a child. And, there are thousands of pages of scholarly research suggesting that marriage truly does benefit children (while single parenthood or same-sex couples are equally less-effective in child rearing).

Mitt expressed his moral foundation in logical terms... and it drove liberals nuts. I wish California had such an intelligent Governor right about now.

Pluralism is one of the things that makes this country great. I love learning truths from Muslims, Buddhists and even sometimes from atheists or agnostics. That doesn't threaten my own faith. If anything, it should make us rethink how we argue universal truth in the face of those who do not believe and who will recoil at religious-sounding rhetoric.

Personally, I am not threatened by Obama's remarks. I am more threatened by his unstated goal. He seems to think that pluralism argues for a banishment of Christian thought from public discourse---that he is using Sharpton to marginalize Dobson and Leviticus to marginalize Christ. I would rather see a president embrace true diversity and take the time to listen to all of the above.

So, I don't see any problem basing my policy decision on what I know to be universal truth. I also have no problem arguing universal truth using whatever logic I have at my disposal--as long as the end result. After all, that may be one of the purposes of Christ's parable of the unjust judge (Luke 18:2-6).

Thanks again for the quote!