SWNIDish kudos to Enquirer columnist Peter Bronson for his fine coverage of CCU's "Beyond the Call" Chapel, an annual event that honors the work of police and firefighters in our area. Bronson was also very kind to our friends who spoke at the event.
By the way, we affirm Bronson's affirmation of the jail tax, subject of a referendum in Hamilton County on election day, November 6.
Amazingly, six past presidents of the Cincinnati NAACP recently broke with the current leadership by endorsing the tax. That makes this referendum the most divisive issue in local politics in recent memory, splitting both the NAACP and the two Republicans on the Hamilton County Commission (boo to Pat DeWine for being an opportunistic knucklehead on this issue).
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Why Rudy Loses, Why Rudy Wins
A couple of conservative luminaries have this week taken issue with the received dogma that Our Man Rudy is the most electable Republican in 2008.
William Kristol does so on the assumption that OMR is the candidate most likely to prompt a third-party antiabortion candidate to run, whose small popular-vote margin would erode OMR's otherwise very narrow advantage over That Woman Hillary.
Maggie Gallagher (thanks to JB in CA for the link) does the same, arguing further that OMR probably would renege on his pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Fair enough, say we. Both of these outcomes are possible. We would like to make three points in rejoinder, the last of which matters most.
If Rudy can carry all the red states plus NY, there's nary a way that Hillary can get a majority of electoral votes. No other candidate has the potential to do that, and it's doubtful that any other candidate could merely hold the red states.
We therefore declare the received dogma to be dogma still. We aver, however, that the reason we have elections is the same reason we have ballgames: to see who will actually win. It's a long time until November 4, 2008--391 days to be exact.
William Kristol does so on the assumption that OMR is the candidate most likely to prompt a third-party antiabortion candidate to run, whose small popular-vote margin would erode OMR's otherwise very narrow advantage over That Woman Hillary.
Maggie Gallagher (thanks to JB in CA for the link) does the same, arguing further that OMR probably would renege on his pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Fair enough, say we. Both of these outcomes are possible. We would like to make three points in rejoinder, the last of which matters most.
- It's nowhere apparent that any of the other Republicans would fare any better than Bob Dole in 1996. We're not for electing another Clinton because we can't find someone who can beat a Clinton.
- Gallagher points out that it was hard for Reagan to appoint pro-life justices. Agreed. So she says it will be harder still for OMR. Perhaps. But that's the deal with the abortion issue and the president: there's just not much the president can do about it, period, including any other Republican besides OMR, assuming such a person can be elected. So much as we care about the abortion issue, it's not at the top of our list for presidential candidates.
- Rudy's real strength--really the political necessity of his candidacy for the GOP--is in the Electoral College, where the next POTUS will be chosen. To wit: OMR credibly threatens to carry New York, possibly also neighboring states like New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts, and perhaps also California. He forces the TWH to spend money defending states that the Ds have taken for granted since 1996. He upsets the delicate balance of the Electoral College, where for two elections a single "battleground" state (Florida and Ohio, respectively) has decided the election.
If Rudy can carry all the red states plus NY, there's nary a way that Hillary can get a majority of electoral votes. No other candidate has the potential to do that, and it's doubtful that any other candidate could merely hold the red states.
We therefore declare the received dogma to be dogma still. We aver, however, that the reason we have elections is the same reason we have ballgames: to see who will actually win. It's a long time until November 4, 2008--391 days to be exact.
Our Day in the Museum: Part Three
We continue our account of our recent visit to the Creation Museum of Answers in Genesis.
Today we begin to note various statements made in museum displays that reflect theological judgments that go well beyond the clear statements of the Bible and which are not necessarily widely held by Christians who take the Bible as their sole or primary authority for theology.
One is the explanation of God's slaying of an animal to provide covering for Adam and Eve's nakedness (Genesis 3:21). The display says (emphasis inserted):
Viewing this episode as a sacrifice is, of course, more than the text actually says. But we don't object to that assertion: it is one commonly made by interpreters and is not without justification.
However, as far as we know, there's nothing explicit in the Bible about animal sacrifice being inadequate to atone for human sin specifically because animals are "not related" to humans, though we invite gentle readers to offer textual support for this notion if they can find it. Yes, Hebrews asserts the inadequacy of animal sacrifice for atonement, but not on this basis as such.
So why this assertion? We think the answer is simple. Ham is seeking a theological means of excluding the possibility of macro-evolution. If animals cannot atone for human sin, but if a creature "related" to humans can atone for human sin, then animals cannot be related to humans.
Of course, there is a logical error here, even granting the premise about relatedness. Could a "related" creature still be inadequate for substitutionary atonement for another reason? That seems possible enough: because the creature is of lesser value than the one for whom it is given as a substitute is one obvious possibility.
But what if it isn't just relatedness that matters? What if it's identity: actually being the very same kind of creature? Then even a related animal is inadequate: we need one of the same kind, not just a related kind. Hmm.
Further, Ham is happy to assert a similarity between humans and other animals in other parts of his exposition. It is important to him that humans and animals are nephesh (a subject for another posting), but plants are not. Clearly he sees similarities and differences between humans and other animate creatures, as just about everyone does who has ever contemplated the matter.
Ham's assertion is, in our theological opinion, unwarranted. Hebrews, obviously unconcerned as the book is about Darwinian macro-evolution, says less about the atonement problem than Ham does, and Anselm is a better guide to the logic of atonement than Ham. The degree to which humans are "related" to animals can't be settled a priori on Ham's theological ground. If all animals are descended from a common ancestor (and we don't know whether they are or not), the doctrine of the atonement is unaffected.
Again, our primary objection to all this is not that such conjectures are bad in themselves. It is the absolutist rhetoric of the presentation. The museum asserts that this view and this view alone constitutes the only valid interpretation of the biblical doctrine of creation. One must have all of it or none of it. But those who note what is included in this all-or-nothing choice need to know how much is Bible and how much is problematic conjecture.
Today we begin to note various statements made in museum displays that reflect theological judgments that go well beyond the clear statements of the Bible and which are not necessarily widely held by Christians who take the Bible as their sole or primary authority for theology.
One is the explanation of God's slaying of an animal to provide covering for Adam and Eve's nakedness (Genesis 3:21). The display says (emphasis inserted):
God killed animals to provide skins to cover Adam and Eve. This was the first sacrifice to cover their sin. For centuries, animals would continue to be sacrificed for sin. But because humans are not related to animals, animal sacrifices cannot take away sin. They can only cover it temporarily.
Viewing this episode as a sacrifice is, of course, more than the text actually says. But we don't object to that assertion: it is one commonly made by interpreters and is not without justification.
However, as far as we know, there's nothing explicit in the Bible about animal sacrifice being inadequate to atone for human sin specifically because animals are "not related" to humans, though we invite gentle readers to offer textual support for this notion if they can find it. Yes, Hebrews asserts the inadequacy of animal sacrifice for atonement, but not on this basis as such.
So why this assertion? We think the answer is simple. Ham is seeking a theological means of excluding the possibility of macro-evolution. If animals cannot atone for human sin, but if a creature "related" to humans can atone for human sin, then animals cannot be related to humans.
Of course, there is a logical error here, even granting the premise about relatedness. Could a "related" creature still be inadequate for substitutionary atonement for another reason? That seems possible enough: because the creature is of lesser value than the one for whom it is given as a substitute is one obvious possibility.
But what if it isn't just relatedness that matters? What if it's identity: actually being the very same kind of creature? Then even a related animal is inadequate: we need one of the same kind, not just a related kind. Hmm.
Further, Ham is happy to assert a similarity between humans and other animals in other parts of his exposition. It is important to him that humans and animals are nephesh (a subject for another posting), but plants are not. Clearly he sees similarities and differences between humans and other animate creatures, as just about everyone does who has ever contemplated the matter.
Ham's assertion is, in our theological opinion, unwarranted. Hebrews, obviously unconcerned as the book is about Darwinian macro-evolution, says less about the atonement problem than Ham does, and Anselm is a better guide to the logic of atonement than Ham. The degree to which humans are "related" to animals can't be settled a priori on Ham's theological ground. If all animals are descended from a common ancestor (and we don't know whether they are or not), the doctrine of the atonement is unaffected.
Again, our primary objection to all this is not that such conjectures are bad in themselves. It is the absolutist rhetoric of the presentation. The museum asserts that this view and this view alone constitutes the only valid interpretation of the biblical doctrine of creation. One must have all of it or none of it. But those who note what is included in this all-or-nothing choice need to know how much is Bible and how much is problematic conjecture.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Brooks on the Odyssey
The Gray Lady dropped its "Times Select" experiment just in time.
David Brooks, restored to free access after being the only Times columnist who would have been worth paying for, today offers a timely column reviewing recent research on that most curious social phenomenon: the social drifting that has become characteristic of America's twenty-somethings.
For those who don't register what Brooks is talking about, think of Friends or, worse, Knocked Up. Young adults in 2007 tend to be underconnected professionally and relationally. Whereas we oldsters of the baby boom, despite our reputation for Woodstock and such, tended to start real careers, get married and have kids, our kids are going back and forth from school to job, living at home and then getting their own places and then moving back home, and drifting through casual relationships.
That's not news. What Brooks offers, however, is that the behavior may be a rational response to the way that our world exists at present, with a changing postindustrial economy based on constantly morphing technology.
We add that the strong economy doesn't hurt at all. The fact that a 25-year-old with no particular skill set can get a job (e.g. Starbucks barista or Verizon sales associate) more or less instantly that pays enough for a shared apartment and a lease on a Chevy Cobalt and keep it for as long or short as she or he wants surely plays a role in this.
At any rate, those of us who want to understand the world of the odyssey, the years between adolescence and adulthood, will get a clue from Brooks.
David Brooks, restored to free access after being the only Times columnist who would have been worth paying for, today offers a timely column reviewing recent research on that most curious social phenomenon: the social drifting that has become characteristic of America's twenty-somethings.
For those who don't register what Brooks is talking about, think of Friends or, worse, Knocked Up. Young adults in 2007 tend to be underconnected professionally and relationally. Whereas we oldsters of the baby boom, despite our reputation for Woodstock and such, tended to start real careers, get married and have kids, our kids are going back and forth from school to job, living at home and then getting their own places and then moving back home, and drifting through casual relationships.
That's not news. What Brooks offers, however, is that the behavior may be a rational response to the way that our world exists at present, with a changing postindustrial economy based on constantly morphing technology.
We add that the strong economy doesn't hurt at all. The fact that a 25-year-old with no particular skill set can get a job (e.g. Starbucks barista or Verizon sales associate) more or less instantly that pays enough for a shared apartment and a lease on a Chevy Cobalt and keep it for as long or short as she or he wants surely plays a role in this.
At any rate, those of us who want to understand the world of the odyssey, the years between adolescence and adulthood, will get a clue from Brooks.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Our Day in the Museum: Part Two
As we have noted, our friends at AIG have divided the question of origins into two mutually exclusive categories: atheistic Darwinism and young-earth creationism. We hasten to add, however, that AIG does acknowledge that there is territory in between. Unfortunately, they characterize those who occupy the territory as Christians who have fallen from faithfulness.
This is nowhere better illustrated than on a couple of displays in the first third of the museum. One reads as follows:
A few steps later, one sees a more detailed chronology of the previously described questioning and abandonment. The display contrasts Luther's assertion of biblical authority with the views of various figures who suggested that "day" in Genesis 1 might refer to something other than 24 hours as measured by timepieces set to the current rotation of the earth.
Now, one might easily expect that all such folk rightly belong to that category so easily labeled "liberal" by those whose theological categories were first shaped to describe the fundamentalist-modernist controversy and then applied to every theological dispute past or present. And indeed, some named on the AIG display could be so described within the very broad parameters with which the "L" word is commonly applied by contemporary evangelical laypeople.
But some are, well, not so easily labeled. Among those cited on the display as inciting the questions that led to abandonment (and we quote from the displays):
The display goes on to mention that the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible endorse the so-called "gap theory" that postulates millions or billions of years between the "beginning" and God's creating the [present] earth in Genesis 1:1.
We find this aspect of the Creation Museum enormously revealing. It is the frankest acknowledgement in the museum that Christians with as much commitment to the authority of the Bible as Ken Ham and his associates disagree that the Bible must be understood to assert that the earth is young. To put it differently, there is no one in the history of Christianity whose advocacy of the authority, infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible was more clear and thorough than Hodge, Warfield and Scofield. Yet even these would take issue with the assertion of AIG that creation took exactly 144 hours and that Ussher was correct that the biblical genealogies were sufficiently complete to allow for a calculation of the age of the earth.*
As readers of this blog no doubt realize, the reasons for rejecting Ussher are many and varied, and well documented in all kinds of places. We simply point out here that Ham and his associates have staked out a position that essentially says, Even among those who believe the Bible, only those agreeing with us on this disputed point of interpretation are really faithful to the Bible.
Sorry, Mr. Ham. We are too committed to liberty in nonessentials/opinions of biblical interpretation, let alone too familiar with the problems of your line of interpretation, to let such a claim go unaddressed. Your weak case is not made stronger by the not-so-subtle disparagement of Christians who take a different view (in the museum, the real disparagement is in a video depicting some teens acting up during a smart-alec sermon that affirms biblical creation but denies six 24-hour days and the Ussher chronology). If anything, you appear to be defensive and divisive, not exactly characteristics that commend you as a paragon of the orderly, merciful, godly life that you want to issue from a proper grasp of creation's origins with the orderly, merciful God.
__________________
*All that makes AIG what it is can be hung on those two hooks: "day" in Genesis 1 must mean 24 hours and Ussher's approach to the genealogies is correct. All else that is distinctive about their assertions is derived from these points. Nothing else divides them from any other Christian approach to the science of origins.
This is nowhere better illustrated than on a couple of displays in the first third of the museum. One reads as follows:
The church believed God's Word.
Based on the Bible, Ussher calculated creation at 4004 B.C.
The church questioned it.
"Is 6,000 years enough time?"
Humanity abandoned it.
"Millions of years ago . . ."
A few steps later, one sees a more detailed chronology of the previously described questioning and abandonment. The display contrasts Luther's assertion of biblical authority with the views of various figures who suggested that "day" in Genesis 1 might refer to something other than 24 hours as measured by timepieces set to the current rotation of the earth.
Now, one might easily expect that all such folk rightly belong to that category so easily labeled "liberal" by those whose theological categories were first shaped to describe the fundamentalist-modernist controversy and then applied to every theological dispute past or present. And indeed, some named on the AIG display could be so described within the very broad parameters with which the "L" word is commonly applied by contemporary evangelical laypeople.
But some are, well, not so easily labeled. Among those cited on the display as inciting the questions that led to abandonment (and we quote from the displays):
B. B. Warfield (1851-1921)
leading defender of the Bible's inerrancy at Princeton Theological Seminary, accepted the possibility that God directed the evolution of life (theistic evolution) (On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race, 1885)
Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
leading defender of the Bible's inerrancy at Princeton Theological Seminary, argued that "day" can mean millions of years in Genesis 1 (Systematic Theology, 1873)
The display goes on to mention that the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible endorse the so-called "gap theory" that postulates millions or billions of years between the "beginning" and God's creating the [present] earth in Genesis 1:1.
We find this aspect of the Creation Museum enormously revealing. It is the frankest acknowledgement in the museum that Christians with as much commitment to the authority of the Bible as Ken Ham and his associates disagree that the Bible must be understood to assert that the earth is young. To put it differently, there is no one in the history of Christianity whose advocacy of the authority, infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible was more clear and thorough than Hodge, Warfield and Scofield. Yet even these would take issue with the assertion of AIG that creation took exactly 144 hours and that Ussher was correct that the biblical genealogies were sufficiently complete to allow for a calculation of the age of the earth.*
As readers of this blog no doubt realize, the reasons for rejecting Ussher are many and varied, and well documented in all kinds of places. We simply point out here that Ham and his associates have staked out a position that essentially says, Even among those who believe the Bible, only those agreeing with us on this disputed point of interpretation are really faithful to the Bible.
Sorry, Mr. Ham. We are too committed to liberty in nonessentials/opinions of biblical interpretation, let alone too familiar with the problems of your line of interpretation, to let such a claim go unaddressed. Your weak case is not made stronger by the not-so-subtle disparagement of Christians who take a different view (in the museum, the real disparagement is in a video depicting some teens acting up during a smart-alec sermon that affirms biblical creation but denies six 24-hour days and the Ussher chronology). If anything, you appear to be defensive and divisive, not exactly characteristics that commend you as a paragon of the orderly, merciful, godly life that you want to issue from a proper grasp of creation's origins with the orderly, merciful God.
__________________
*All that makes AIG what it is can be hung on those two hooks: "day" in Genesis 1 must mean 24 hours and Ussher's approach to the genealogies is correct. All else that is distinctive about their assertions is derived from these points. Nothing else divides them from any other Christian approach to the science of origins.
WHHS Homecoming: Great Fun, But the Quest Continues
We update our report on the Walnut Hills High School homecoming festivities with the following video:
No, the football team did not end its quest for a W. But the pregame carnival (organized by carnival experts, namely, parents from Fairview German Language School) was a huge success, the stands were packed, the Marching Blue and Gold executed their show with impressive precision, and a fun time was had by all, including Little Miami's delightfully spirited visitors' section.
And SWNID managed to enjoy the football game while listening to the MLB Division Series on a headset radio.
Principal Jeff Brockamp deserves accolades for his efforts to turn transform WHHS's Friday night atmosphere from funereal to festive. We commend his efforts to bring transformation to pockets of indifference at the celebrated high school.
No, the football team did not end its quest for a W. But the pregame carnival (organized by carnival experts, namely, parents from Fairview German Language School) was a huge success, the stands were packed, the Marching Blue and Gold executed their show with impressive precision, and a fun time was had by all, including Little Miami's delightfully spirited visitors' section.
And SWNID managed to enjoy the football game while listening to the MLB Division Series on a headset radio.
Principal Jeff Brockamp deserves accolades for his efforts to turn transform WHHS's Friday night atmosphere from funereal to festive. We commend his efforts to bring transformation to pockets of indifference at the celebrated high school.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Enquirer Nicely Covers WHHS Football Quagmire
Cincinnati's Walnut Hills High School is a great place for bright kids to get an academically strong secondary education. For the last three years, it has been a miserable place for big, athletic boys to play football. Walnut hasn't won in over three years.
Today's Enquirer covers the situation with a degree of thoroughness, fairness and sympathy seldom seen in journalism these days. We commend the writer, Tom Groschen, for the superb coverage.
We also commend the new WHHS principal, Jeff Brokamp, for the steps he has taken to raise the profile of the football program, in hopes of attracting more athletes to the team, thereby creating a measure of success that will encourage still more participation and allow everyone to have a better experience.
We expect to attend the WHHS homecoming game tonight. Care to join us?
Today's Enquirer covers the situation with a degree of thoroughness, fairness and sympathy seldom seen in journalism these days. We commend the writer, Tom Groschen, for the superb coverage.
We also commend the new WHHS principal, Jeff Brokamp, for the steps he has taken to raise the profile of the football program, in hopes of attracting more athletes to the team, thereby creating a measure of success that will encourage still more participation and allow everyone to have a better experience.
We expect to attend the WHHS homecoming game tonight. Care to join us?
Sunny Optimism for a Friday, But Will Anyone Listen?
We thank the good folks at WSJ, lately the primary content provider for this blog, for today's summary by Stephen Moore of statistical data suggesting that humans are making things better for other humans.
Like reducing the global rate of poverty by 50% between 2000 and 2015. How nice is that?
Moore attributes the improvement in human health, prosperity and freedom to the spread of capitalism. We agree.
As a Christian, we don't think that being materially prosperous is the most important thing. But we also don't think there's any reason to make people suffer, either. So we think this is a good thing.
Meanwhile, it seems that a majority of the party of Reagan doesn't share our sunny view of these pleasant developments. Fifty-nine percent of Republicans recently polled said that they think that free trade pacts are a bad thing for the United States. We guess that a decade of free trade agreements with historically minute rates of unemployment just aren't acceptable!
Like reducing the global rate of poverty by 50% between 2000 and 2015. How nice is that?
Moore attributes the improvement in human health, prosperity and freedom to the spread of capitalism. We agree.
As a Christian, we don't think that being materially prosperous is the most important thing. But we also don't think there's any reason to make people suffer, either. So we think this is a good thing.
Meanwhile, it seems that a majority of the party of Reagan doesn't share our sunny view of these pleasant developments. Fifty-nine percent of Republicans recently polled said that they think that free trade pacts are a bad thing for the United States. We guess that a decade of free trade agreements with historically minute rates of unemployment just aren't acceptable!
Our Day in the Museum: Part One
Thanks to our obtaining a complimentary ticket, yesterday we visited the famous Creation Museum of Answers in Genesis.
Knowing that gentle readers want to hear our views on the museum after our having visited it--some for the opportunity to take issue with us, we will strive to oblige.
First, we mention that above all we were glad to see two good friends who are valued museum employees, and we know others who work there as well whom we did not see. We have utter respect for the Christian faith, ethics, and professionalism of all these people. We also enjoyed meeting a senior executive of the organization with whom we had previously shared some correspondence, and we look forward to a pleasant and productive relationship with him in the future. If we knew other employees, we probably would feel the same way about them too. If we have a criticism of the message conveyed by the museum or other AIG acts of communication, it in no way reflects on our sense of Christian siblinghood with any of these folk.
Second, we stress the degree to which we agree with the message of AIG. We agree that atheistic Darwinism is epistemologically unwarranted and socially deleterious (translation for that gentle reader who sometimes complains about the diction of this blog: there's no good reason to believe that everything exists without a creator, and believing in no creator makes it hard to have a good life). We believe that the biblical view of a God who creates all that exists for the purpose of human habitation on earth is the most coherent explanation of all of human knowledge and experience. We believe that this message needs to be spoken to our culture in a way that is clear, forthright and appealing.
Third, and not unexpectedly, we register the judgment that the Creation Museum, like everything that we've seen of AIG, is thoroughly the expression of the views and vision of the organization's founder, Ken Ham. We first heard Ham in the early 90s, when he first came to Cincinnati. The museum is the three-dimensional, multimedia realization of the same message that he delivered on the CCU campus on that occasion. The museum would not exist in the form it does if he had not singlemindedly pursued the precise point of view that he was articulating when he first came to the United States.
All that having been said, our day in the museum confirmed what has been our objection to Ham's message since we first heard it: it unfairly and inaccurately mischaracterizes the issue as a choice between atheistic Darwinism and young-earth creationism. In so doing, Ham does more than commit a logical error. His rhetoric and argumentation that follow as a consequence of this false choice have various effects, none of which are in our SWNIDish opinion good effects:
Those three effects of the AIG/Creation Museum message are of deep concern to our SWNIDish self. We care deeply about Christian unity, about evangelism, and about respecting the authority of the Bible by speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent. If that makes us a Campbellite, then we are proud (modestly, of course) to be labeled such. We hope it makes us just a Christian, which is what a Campbellite is supposed to say in such circumstances. If Christians who don't think of themselves as Campbellites agree that these are important commitments, then we are again pleased, declaring such folk crypto-Campbellites if they aren't offended by such.
But in any case, these are not matters that we can take lightly.
We took substantial electronic notes during our brief visit to the Creation Museum. We confess that we don't have the time and energy to assemble a thorough critique of what we saw, let alone to examine the printed and video material that AIG produces to articulate the details of Ken Ham's position (and of those who have found common cause with him). We do, however, think it lies within our means to serve up some specific observations about specific details from time to time. To make the experience manageable both to write and to read, we'll do it occasionally, as our whim warrants and our time allows.
Today, we offer this observation, somewhat off topic: to our eye the museum was full of visitors, but one of our friends who works at the museum described the attendance as relatively low compared to most recent days. This bodes well for the museum's financial solvency, something about which we expressed skepticism in the past.
We note, however, that the Thursday crowd was composed largely of elderly white folk who looked very ... well ... churchy (and there's nothing wrong with that, most particularly as SWNID aspires to be an elderly white folk someday and will likely be judged churchy by many). There were some families present, and these looked like ... well ... Christian home schoolers (and there's nothing wrong with that either, as anyone would be glad to have children as evidently bright, orderly and well groomed as these were).
This was a weekday, and folks with honest jobs or corporate (government or private) school schedules aren't going to be at the Creation Museum on a weekday. But we wonder nevertheless whether the Creation Museum will convey its message, which is overtly evangelistic, to people who haven't been evangelized already. SWNID has much experience with Christians organizing large, appealing events or experiences to offer to the public as a means of communicating some aspect of the Christian message, or even simply as a means of providing a nonthreatening point of contact between the church and the unchurched. We've seen often how such efforts soon reach only people who are already convinced of the truth of the message and striving to live by it. To put it more simply, Christians often put a lot of effort into an outreach event and end up preaching to the choir.
Is that the effect of the Creation Museum?
If so, it's our hope that Christians will process the message so as not to exclude what the museum does exclude: that there are biblically faithful, intellectually coherent points of view besides young earth creationism, and people who hold those views aren't The Enemy. But they'll have to do that on their own. The museum wasn't designed to help them think that thought.
It's also our hope that other Christians can get an alternative word to those who have heard of the museum, taken its binary choice as valid and decided thereby that they must dismiss Christian claims. It seems to us that the best means of getting that alternative word to the public is not to build another museum. It's probably not to spend our efforts criticizing AIG, either. But it does matter that Christians engage the world of science (and philosophy of science) in a way that makes clear that the Christian view of God is coherent with what we know from science, even more so than other worldviews/metanarratives/religions/philosophies.
And so we commend those so engaged.
Knowing that gentle readers want to hear our views on the museum after our having visited it--some for the opportunity to take issue with us, we will strive to oblige.
First, we mention that above all we were glad to see two good friends who are valued museum employees, and we know others who work there as well whom we did not see. We have utter respect for the Christian faith, ethics, and professionalism of all these people. We also enjoyed meeting a senior executive of the organization with whom we had previously shared some correspondence, and we look forward to a pleasant and productive relationship with him in the future. If we knew other employees, we probably would feel the same way about them too. If we have a criticism of the message conveyed by the museum or other AIG acts of communication, it in no way reflects on our sense of Christian siblinghood with any of these folk.
Second, we stress the degree to which we agree with the message of AIG. We agree that atheistic Darwinism is epistemologically unwarranted and socially deleterious (translation for that gentle reader who sometimes complains about the diction of this blog: there's no good reason to believe that everything exists without a creator, and believing in no creator makes it hard to have a good life). We believe that the biblical view of a God who creates all that exists for the purpose of human habitation on earth is the most coherent explanation of all of human knowledge and experience. We believe that this message needs to be spoken to our culture in a way that is clear, forthright and appealing.
Third, and not unexpectedly, we register the judgment that the Creation Museum, like everything that we've seen of AIG, is thoroughly the expression of the views and vision of the organization's founder, Ken Ham. We first heard Ham in the early 90s, when he first came to Cincinnati. The museum is the three-dimensional, multimedia realization of the same message that he delivered on the CCU campus on that occasion. The museum would not exist in the form it does if he had not singlemindedly pursued the precise point of view that he was articulating when he first came to the United States.
All that having been said, our day in the museum confirmed what has been our objection to Ham's message since we first heard it: it unfairly and inaccurately mischaracterizes the issue as a choice between atheistic Darwinism and young-earth creationism. In so doing, Ham does more than commit a logical error. His rhetoric and argumentation that follow as a consequence of this false choice have various effects, none of which are in our SWNIDish opinion good effects:
- By presenting only two points of view and excluding all others, notably the variety of approaches that can broadly be labeled "old-earth creationism," Ham at best marginalizes and at worst vilifies people whose commitment to the Christian Scriptures is no less than his, and whose understanding of those same Scriptures arguably exceeds his.
- By presenting only two points of view and excluding all others, Ham pushes people who are sincerely convinced that converging lines of evidence argue for an old earth and an old universe to conclude that they can never believe the Christian message.
- To support his conclusions, Ham and his associates assert various conjectures as characteristic of a biblical view even though at best they have nothing to do with what the Bible says. Rhetorically they tend to identify these conjectures as what the Bible actually says. Some of these conjectures create additional problems in biblical interpretation, which in turn Ham must address with additional conjectures. And so Ham constructs a house of cards no less difficult to sustain than the very view he opposes, and having little to do with what the Bible actually says to boot.
Those three effects of the AIG/Creation Museum message are of deep concern to our SWNIDish self. We care deeply about Christian unity, about evangelism, and about respecting the authority of the Bible by speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent. If that makes us a Campbellite, then we are proud (modestly, of course) to be labeled such. We hope it makes us just a Christian, which is what a Campbellite is supposed to say in such circumstances. If Christians who don't think of themselves as Campbellites agree that these are important commitments, then we are again pleased, declaring such folk crypto-Campbellites if they aren't offended by such.
But in any case, these are not matters that we can take lightly.
We took substantial electronic notes during our brief visit to the Creation Museum. We confess that we don't have the time and energy to assemble a thorough critique of what we saw, let alone to examine the printed and video material that AIG produces to articulate the details of Ken Ham's position (and of those who have found common cause with him). We do, however, think it lies within our means to serve up some specific observations about specific details from time to time. To make the experience manageable both to write and to read, we'll do it occasionally, as our whim warrants and our time allows.
Today, we offer this observation, somewhat off topic: to our eye the museum was full of visitors, but one of our friends who works at the museum described the attendance as relatively low compared to most recent days. This bodes well for the museum's financial solvency, something about which we expressed skepticism in the past.
We note, however, that the Thursday crowd was composed largely of elderly white folk who looked very ... well ... churchy (and there's nothing wrong with that, most particularly as SWNID aspires to be an elderly white folk someday and will likely be judged churchy by many). There were some families present, and these looked like ... well ... Christian home schoolers (and there's nothing wrong with that either, as anyone would be glad to have children as evidently bright, orderly and well groomed as these were).
This was a weekday, and folks with honest jobs or corporate (government or private) school schedules aren't going to be at the Creation Museum on a weekday. But we wonder nevertheless whether the Creation Museum will convey its message, which is overtly evangelistic, to people who haven't been evangelized already. SWNID has much experience with Christians organizing large, appealing events or experiences to offer to the public as a means of communicating some aspect of the Christian message, or even simply as a means of providing a nonthreatening point of contact between the church and the unchurched. We've seen often how such efforts soon reach only people who are already convinced of the truth of the message and striving to live by it. To put it more simply, Christians often put a lot of effort into an outreach event and end up preaching to the choir.
Is that the effect of the Creation Museum?
If so, it's our hope that Christians will process the message so as not to exclude what the museum does exclude: that there are biblically faithful, intellectually coherent points of view besides young earth creationism, and people who hold those views aren't The Enemy. But they'll have to do that on their own. The museum wasn't designed to help them think that thought.
It's also our hope that other Christians can get an alternative word to those who have heard of the museum, taken its binary choice as valid and decided thereby that they must dismiss Christian claims. It seems to us that the best means of getting that alternative word to the public is not to build another museum. It's probably not to spend our efforts criticizing AIG, either. But it does matter that Christians engage the world of science (and philosophy of science) in a way that makes clear that the Christian view of God is coherent with what we know from science, even more so than other worldviews/metanarratives/religions/philosophies.
And so we commend those so engaged.
Kaplan: Warriors Want and Deserve Respect
When the history of the War on Islamofascism is written, Atlantic correspondent Robert Kaplan will be celebrated as the great chronicler of the average soldier's experience. His superb articles in our most significant general-interest monthly and his two recent books Imperial Grunts and Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts give clear eyed, honest, humane assessments of the men and women (but mostly men) who have volunteered to do the awful work of protecting the other six billion people from the people who want to kill us.
That's why his opinion piece in yesterday's WSJ is so important. In essence, he points out that the American elites, including the MSM, are intent on portraying Americas warriors as hapless victims of a misguided military policy. They don't see it that way, of course. Like all soldiers, they are happy to point out every bad decision made by their commanders. But as volunteers, they don't want pity for the choices they have made. They want respect as professionals who know how to do their jobs better than any group of military professionals at any point in history.
Kaplan essentially asks everyone to process the message this way: (a) do you know abut the abuses at Abu Ghraib? (Answer: Of course!); (b) Do you know about American military personnel awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor during the War on Terror? (Answer: How can I if no one tells me?). The fact that the answers are so predictable tells us volumes about what matters to those who deign it their profession to tell the important stories to the rest of us.
Knowing that some who wear the uniform occasionally read this blog, we will say again: soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, you have our utmost respect and thanks. You have taken on an enormous burden that few choose but from which all benefit. In your commitment to your work and your comrades, your focus on the principles that direct your difficult work, and the modesty and grace with which you accept the dangers, the difficulties, the praise and the blame that come your way, you inspire and challenge us.
That's why his opinion piece in yesterday's WSJ is so important. In essence, he points out that the American elites, including the MSM, are intent on portraying Americas warriors as hapless victims of a misguided military policy. They don't see it that way, of course. Like all soldiers, they are happy to point out every bad decision made by their commanders. But as volunteers, they don't want pity for the choices they have made. They want respect as professionals who know how to do their jobs better than any group of military professionals at any point in history.
Kaplan essentially asks everyone to process the message this way: (a) do you know abut the abuses at Abu Ghraib? (Answer: Of course!); (b) Do you know about American military personnel awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor during the War on Terror? (Answer: How can I if no one tells me?). The fact that the answers are so predictable tells us volumes about what matters to those who deign it their profession to tell the important stories to the rest of us.
Knowing that some who wear the uniform occasionally read this blog, we will say again: soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, you have our utmost respect and thanks. You have taken on an enormous burden that few choose but from which all benefit. In your commitment to your work and your comrades, your focus on the principles that direct your difficult work, and the modesty and grace with which you accept the dangers, the difficulties, the praise and the blame that come your way, you inspire and challenge us.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
SWNID to Evangelicals: Stop It with the Israel Stuff
NPR's Morning Edition today briefly covers the presence of about 7000 American Evangelicals in Jerusalem to celebrate Sukkot and to show their political solidarity with Israel.
The coverage focuses predictably on one aspect of the story: that Israelis are conflicted about their political and economic dependence on people whom they view as theologically goofy and possibly threatening, specifically because these evangelicals look forward to the massive conversion of Jews during the Great Tribulation, which most Jews understand would mean that there would be no more Jews.
We will lay aside our concern about the persistent definition of Judaism as anything but belief in Jesus as the Jewish messiah. Instead we will focus on our concern about the very unbiblical things that people believe when they believe dispensationalism. But we will keep it short.
Dispensationalists believe that the modern state of Israel represents the fulfillment of biblical prophecy that Israel will return to the land after the exile. That's why these Evangelical pilgrims/celebrants insist that their support for Israel is unqualified, that Israel must not give up a square foot of land to the Palestinians, and that bad stuff happens to Americans whenever Israel makes a move to give up land. It's God's will that Israel take and hold its historic territory right now.
Unfortunately for dispensationalism, the New Testament identifies the coming of Jesus and its saving aftermath as the fulfillment of the promises of postexilic return. The problem with dispensationalism is that it actually marginalizes the significance of Jesus.
Nevertheless, we are not as concerned as some are about dispensationalists' blind political support for Israel. Seven thousand Americans in Jerusalem sounds like a lot until one realizes that just about every medium-sized city in America has an evangelical church that has more people than that on a Sunday morning.
This event in Jerusalem is a meeting of fringe folks who have only the most marginal influence on policy. The American government has supported Israel for sixty years largely because it is a reliable ally in a part of the world where we really need a reliable ally, not because some people who have memorized the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible have undue influence at the State Department.
The coverage focuses predictably on one aspect of the story: that Israelis are conflicted about their political and economic dependence on people whom they view as theologically goofy and possibly threatening, specifically because these evangelicals look forward to the massive conversion of Jews during the Great Tribulation, which most Jews understand would mean that there would be no more Jews.
We will lay aside our concern about the persistent definition of Judaism as anything but belief in Jesus as the Jewish messiah. Instead we will focus on our concern about the very unbiblical things that people believe when they believe dispensationalism. But we will keep it short.
Dispensationalists believe that the modern state of Israel represents the fulfillment of biblical prophecy that Israel will return to the land after the exile. That's why these Evangelical pilgrims/celebrants insist that their support for Israel is unqualified, that Israel must not give up a square foot of land to the Palestinians, and that bad stuff happens to Americans whenever Israel makes a move to give up land. It's God's will that Israel take and hold its historic territory right now.
Unfortunately for dispensationalism, the New Testament identifies the coming of Jesus and its saving aftermath as the fulfillment of the promises of postexilic return. The problem with dispensationalism is that it actually marginalizes the significance of Jesus.
Nevertheless, we are not as concerned as some are about dispensationalists' blind political support for Israel. Seven thousand Americans in Jerusalem sounds like a lot until one realizes that just about every medium-sized city in America has an evangelical church that has more people than that on a Sunday morning.
This event in Jerusalem is a meeting of fringe folks who have only the most marginal influence on policy. The American government has supported Israel for sixty years largely because it is a reliable ally in a part of the world where we really need a reliable ally, not because some people who have memorized the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible have undue influence at the State Department.
More on Winning Iraq and Winning in '08
Yesterday's WSJ had a provocative opinion piece by one Bartle Bull, foreign editor of Prospect magazine, once again analyzing the evidence to argue that the surge is prevailing nicely, thank you very much. He adds to the chorus of voices observing that the victory is coming because Iraqis are aligning with American forces, something that some Democrats have fatuously exclaimed has nothing to do with the surge.
We urge the reading of the entire piece but can't resist this delicious pull quote (emphasis inserted):
Patience has been the only weapon missing in America's arsenal. But maybe, just maybe, we can eke out enough of it to see this through to a reasonably happy ending.
Meanwhile, Democrats, undeterred by the war's success, continue to plot to end it. The latest is a ploy to authorize funding only through February, at which point they hope for enough bad news to be able to do what Frank Church did to Vietnam, guarantee its fall by cutting off funding. But these days it appears possible that by February funding might be reduced because things are going so very well.
So here's an interesting political dilemma for Democrats, and a potentially intractable problem for Republicans. Do Democrats remain in defeat mode to satisfy their Angry Left pacifist base through the primaries? If so, what do they do if victory is looking like a foregone conclusion by spring? Can they count on the electorate being ready to move on from a Republican-led military victory to a Democratic administration? It took a couple of years for voters to decide to punish G. H. W. Bush for winning in the Middle East. Could it take only a few months now?
And if voters decide they are just tired of Republicans whether they win in Iraq or not, is there anything Republicans can do to prevent their electoral defeat?
Americans might just manage the requisite patience for a preliminary victory. But will they manage to have long enough memories to sustain a victory?
We urge the reading of the entire piece but can't resist this delicious pull quote (emphasis inserted):
So--with the Sunni insurgency defeated, the Shiite nationalists inside the government, breakup and true civil war avoided, Iran a pest at worst, regional sectarian disruption a fantasy and a White House that will not be forced into declarations of defeat by three IEDs a day--the main questions of Iraqi politics have been resolved. Despite the huge prices paid for these victories, the resolutions have mostly been for the best.
Patience has been the only weapon missing in America's arsenal. But maybe, just maybe, we can eke out enough of it to see this through to a reasonably happy ending.
Meanwhile, Democrats, undeterred by the war's success, continue to plot to end it. The latest is a ploy to authorize funding only through February, at which point they hope for enough bad news to be able to do what Frank Church did to Vietnam, guarantee its fall by cutting off funding. But these days it appears possible that by February funding might be reduced because things are going so very well.
So here's an interesting political dilemma for Democrats, and a potentially intractable problem for Republicans. Do Democrats remain in defeat mode to satisfy their Angry Left pacifist base through the primaries? If so, what do they do if victory is looking like a foregone conclusion by spring? Can they count on the electorate being ready to move on from a Republican-led military victory to a Democratic administration? It took a couple of years for voters to decide to punish G. H. W. Bush for winning in the Middle East. Could it take only a few months now?
And if voters decide they are just tired of Republicans whether they win in Iraq or not, is there anything Republicans can do to prevent their electoral defeat?
Americans might just manage the requisite patience for a preliminary victory. But will they manage to have long enough memories to sustain a victory?
Strickland Exposes SCHIP Hypocrisy, Unintentionally
We have held our tongue on the performance of Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, waiting for him to do something that exposed him for what we believe him to be, an unimaginative hack who obediently serves the national party agenda. Strickland's blocking of school vouchers for poor kids in failing schools was a fine example of his fealty to public employees unions. But now WVXU has supplied coverage of the event.
For the last two days, Cincinnati's esteemed NPR news affiliate has been covering Strickland's reaction to Bush's vetoing of SCHIP funding. The station has reported his dramatic statement in two distinct parts (and we'd love to supply a link to this coverage, but we can't find one):
For the last two days, Cincinnati's esteemed NPR news affiliate has been covering Strickland's reaction to Bush's vetoing of SCHIP funding. The station has reported his dramatic statement in two distinct parts (and we'd love to supply a link to this coverage, but we can't find one):
- Strickland says that this veto means that millions of children, thousands of them in Ohio, will not get the health care that they need.
- Strickland says that the veto will not require a change in Ohio's budget for SCHIP.
Yes, this veto is terrible, awful. Kids will die in the streets. No, this veto doesn't mean a thing for Ohio's SCHIP program. We can fund our budget perfectly well at current levels without this bill passing. Wow!
We couldn't ask for a more obvious admission that for the Democrats the entire SCHIP affair has been a matter of trying either to expand SCHIP to become a middle-class entitlement or to stick the Rs with bogus blame for letting sick children die.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Lawsuit Asserts Nepotistic Corruption at Oral Roberts U
Three recently dismissed professors from Oral Roberts University have filed suit against ORU and four of its administrators. Alleging wrongful dismissal, they claim that their firings were prompted by their turning over a report of misuse of funds by the Richard Roberts family.
This the first chapter in what will probably be a long story. But that doesn't stop us from offering our SWNIDish observations:
This the first chapter in what will probably be a long story. But that doesn't stop us from offering our SWNIDish observations:
- ORU is not the only Christian organization to practice nepotism. In fact, it's tough to find a Christian organization that hasn't done some dynastic hiring.
- Nepotism is not always bad. SWNID highly esteems his professorial colleagues who are the seed of his own esteemed professors. The case has been made that there is an inherent wisdom in hiring from the family.
- Too many Christian organizations are so closely identified with a single individual that they invite corruption. We have a friend, whom we won't name, who once attended a college, which we won't name, and later returned there as a faculty member. He later told us that within six months of his hiring, he recognized that the organization had become so much a cult to protect and enhance the public image of the personality who founded and ran the college, he would either have to leave, become utterly cynical, or "drink the Kool-Aid." He left and is very happy teaching elsewhere. He is not alone.
- The credibility of the claims of the plaintiffs is presently for SWNID enhanced by the facts that (a) they seek very limited cash damages; (b) their accounts sound sufficiently detailed and coherent to suggest that they are based on fair recollection of facts. Still, we defer to the legal process to sort all this out.
So at this point, here's our word of caution. Let's all knock off the identification of certain individuals as especially gifted--or worse, "anointed" (only one "Anointed One" is really needed, yes?)--to be the near dictatorial heads of Christian organization. SWNID, being a little executive, understands the importance of executive leadership. But SWNID, being a Christian, understands the weaknesses of sinful human beings.
ORU was founded around the personality of one Oral Roberts (side note: never name anything after a person who is still alive, lest that person permanently embarrass you, cf. "Pete Rose Way"). Said personality was, to say the least, a problematic public figure. Somehow, influence at ORU passed from the Reverend Mr. Roberts to his offspring. They now seem to play the role of Eli's sons.
When organizations with the personality cults nepotize their second generation, they create the potential for all something really awful.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
C. F. D. Moule, 1908-2007
We thank gentle reader Scott L for directing us to the news that one of the true giants of New Testament scholarship, Charles Francis Digby Moule, passed away this week.
Those who do NT academically don't need to be told who Moule is. Those who don't should read the Independent's obituary to get a sense of the world in which so much influential scholarship on the Bible has been recently done. One can also learn that devotion to God, learning and good sense can somehow reside in the same person.
Those who do NT academically don't need to be told who Moule is. Those who don't should read the Independent's obituary to get a sense of the world in which so much influential scholarship on the Bible has been recently done. One can also learn that devotion to God, learning and good sense can somehow reside in the same person.
Epic Small-Screen Synergy
For those, like SWNID, who missed Sunday evening's historic blending of classic TV franchises (with HT to KevinK):
Something New for Waxman to Investigate
We tip the SWNIDish hat to gentle reader KevinK for pointing us to the AP's coverage of the drop in American military and Iraqi civilian deaths in September.
How big a drop, you ask? How about 50%?
Obviously something is wrong here. Since it is well known that the surge isn't working, that a massive civil war is going on relentlessly, and that all hope in Iraq is lost for the next century, the drop in deaths demands explanation. Are casualties dropping because everyone is already dead? Because every available bullet and explosive has been used already? Because the Evil Bush Administration has enlisted Halliburton secretly to take over the Associated Press?
We call for a Congressional Investigation, led by the intrepid Henry Waxman (D-Unctuousness), whose major qualification for leading such an investigation is ... well ... that he's led a lot of investigations.
How big a drop, you ask? How about 50%?
Obviously something is wrong here. Since it is well known that the surge isn't working, that a massive civil war is going on relentlessly, and that all hope in Iraq is lost for the next century, the drop in deaths demands explanation. Are casualties dropping because everyone is already dead? Because every available bullet and explosive has been used already? Because the Evil Bush Administration has enlisted Halliburton secretly to take over the Associated Press?
We call for a Congressional Investigation, led by the intrepid Henry Waxman (D-Unctuousness), whose major qualification for leading such an investigation is ... well ... that he's led a lot of investigations.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Dobson Flirts with Ultimate Political Disaster
As our previous post implies, one should only take remedies for the ailments that they actually address.
James Dobson is a great remedy for bad parenting. We SWNIDishly affirm the core insights of Dare to Discipline and his other books on the subject: that children of all ages crave order and parents should provide it, for the good of all.
James Dobson is not, however, even a marginal remedy for bad culture or bad politics. He's proved that far too many times.
So now it's no surprise when the Gray Lady reports that Dobson and friends are openly flirting with a third-party candidate* should Our Man Rudy get the GOP nomination.
Nothing ever demonstrates the political irrelevancy of an individual or group as much as their backing a third-party candidate. Such movements never elect said candidates, never affect the outcome of the general election in a way that favors the agenda of the group, seldom restore a mainline party's platform to the group's agenda, and often permanently consign all associated with the third-party effort to the political wilderness.
The only positive effect of third-party candidacies is that they help elect the candidate most unlike the third-party candidate. And in 2008, that would be That Woman.
The Times handles all this with their usual silliness. Referring to Dobson's Council for National Policy as "secretive," the article somehow manages to report on what the secretive group is deliberating. However, give them kudos for noting that lots of religious conservatives want nothing to do with third parties.
Like this one.
Rudy has said he'll appoint justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito. We all know that That Woman will appoint Ruth Bader Ginsberg's Evil Twin and Evil Triplet. Since appointing justices is about all a POTUS gets to do with abortion, our pro-life heart is strangely warmed by Our Man.
Enough, Dr. Dobson. Give us an updated edition of Dare to Discipline and then retire to a nice home somewhere in the mountains or the desert. Stop with the movie reviews and the political endorsements, for goodness' sake (and we mean that last phrase literally).
__________________
*In passing, we wonder who Dobson could get to run. No one with political ambitions for anything beyond state legislature would see a third-party candidacy with Dobson as anything other than political suicide. Part of the comic nature of third-party candidates is that none has been remotely fit to govern since TR's Bull Moose debacle in 1912.
James Dobson is a great remedy for bad parenting. We SWNIDishly affirm the core insights of Dare to Discipline and his other books on the subject: that children of all ages crave order and parents should provide it, for the good of all.
James Dobson is not, however, even a marginal remedy for bad culture or bad politics. He's proved that far too many times.
So now it's no surprise when the Gray Lady reports that Dobson and friends are openly flirting with a third-party candidate* should Our Man Rudy get the GOP nomination.
Nothing ever demonstrates the political irrelevancy of an individual or group as much as their backing a third-party candidate. Such movements never elect said candidates, never affect the outcome of the general election in a way that favors the agenda of the group, seldom restore a mainline party's platform to the group's agenda, and often permanently consign all associated with the third-party effort to the political wilderness.
The only positive effect of third-party candidacies is that they help elect the candidate most unlike the third-party candidate. And in 2008, that would be That Woman.
The Times handles all this with their usual silliness. Referring to Dobson's Council for National Policy as "secretive," the article somehow manages to report on what the secretive group is deliberating. However, give them kudos for noting that lots of religious conservatives want nothing to do with third parties.
Like this one.
Rudy has said he'll appoint justices in the mold of Roberts and Alito. We all know that That Woman will appoint Ruth Bader Ginsberg's Evil Twin and Evil Triplet. Since appointing justices is about all a POTUS gets to do with abortion, our pro-life heart is strangely warmed by Our Man.
Enough, Dr. Dobson. Give us an updated edition of Dare to Discipline and then retire to a nice home somewhere in the mountains or the desert. Stop with the movie reviews and the political endorsements, for goodness' sake (and we mean that last phrase literally).
__________________
*In passing, we wonder who Dobson could get to run. No one with political ambitions for anything beyond state legislature would see a third-party candidacy with Dobson as anything other than political suicide. Part of the comic nature of third-party candidates is that none has been remotely fit to govern since TR's Bull Moose debacle in 1912.
SWNID Recommends Sleep Aid
For gentle readers who sometimes have trouble falling asleep, SWNID recommends the new product advertised here.
Specifications:
Specifications:
- As a sleep aid, this product is definitely not habit forming. Most patients find it difficult to use more than once.
- Warning: may cause nausea.
- Do not use this product with ketchup.
Myanmar: Very, Very Bad
Today's reports from Myanmar are preliminary and unconfirmed, but it looks as if the military government has taken the worst possible approach to the protests, namely, mass killings.
China has the greatest influence on the Burmese junta. It's time that the Chinese government proved that it's serious about global citizenship and used that influence to put an end to these atrocities.
News reports say nothing about the effect of all this on the growing number of Christians in Myanmar, and since the government has shut down the Internet, folks with contacts in Myanmar aren't getting email from those contacts.
The advantage of Great Britain's post-colonial position is that its news agencies maintain good coverage of parts of the world that Americans think of as irrelevant. Look to the UK MSM for any significant coverage of the situation.
China has the greatest influence on the Burmese junta. It's time that the Chinese government proved that it's serious about global citizenship and used that influence to put an end to these atrocities.
News reports say nothing about the effect of all this on the growing number of Christians in Myanmar, and since the government has shut down the Internet, folks with contacts in Myanmar aren't getting email from those contacts.
The advantage of Great Britain's post-colonial position is that its news agencies maintain good coverage of parts of the world that Americans think of as irrelevant. Look to the UK MSM for any significant coverage of the situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)