America was founded on the principle that it is right to sacrifice blood for liberty. It is telling that the Bush defenders make precisely the opposite argument, that it is right to sacrifice liberty in order to avoid the shedding of American blood. In this they are, like the Dear Leader, avowedly anti-American.
So, d'you ever haul out the old blunderbuss, load it up painstakingly, aim it to perfection, and fire off a blistering round exactly at the wrong target? Yeah, me neither. But if I did, the experience might be something like this response I crafted to a blog comment that I later concluded must have been intended sarcastically. So, in the interest of retrieving the projectile and redirecting my fire at the proper recipient, here goes. Guest Blogger Ross Douthat, writing at Andrew Sullivan's daily dish, said of the so-called Christmas Wars:
"...the larger reality is that ... there is a significant chunk of this country - [the cultural elite] - that doesn't much care for Christianity, at least if it's practiced seriously and its basic dogmas are left intact."
Speaking as a fairly regular churchgoer whose views typically align with those of the so-called cultural elite, I think Douthat, and by extension those in the "Christianity under siege" community, seriously misunderstand how they are perceived. There is impatience with the gullibility of those who are taken in by such transparent buffoons as Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, and George W. Bush. There is disgust with the hypocritical sanctimony that is all too often the public face of the "Religious Right." There is bemusement, sure, when you get cut off in traffic by a car with a bumper sticker proclaiming, "Christians aren't perfect -- just forgiven." There is horror and disbelief at those who do not appreciate what a blessing we have in the wall of separation between church and state. And there is annoyance with the missionary zeal that amounts to intolerance of anyone else's brand of spirituality.
With regard to the serious practice of Christianity's basic dogmas, well, if more Christians lived a life of humility, peacemaking, and genuine charity, I think even the jaded cultural elite would stand in awe.
TERRY MORAN (ABC NEWS): Are you troubled at all that more than 100 people in US custody have died, 26 of them now being investigated as criminal homicides, people beaten to death, suffocated to death, died of hypothermia in US custody?
DICK CHENEY (VICE PRESIDENT): I won't accept your numbers, Terry. But I guess one of the things I'm concerned about is, that as we get farther and farther away from 9/11, and there have been no further attacks against the United States, there seems to be less and less concern about doing what's necessary in order to defend the country.
Prove it or admit you can't
Sunday, December 11, 2005The debate over evolution, natural selection, creationism and intelligent design seems to me mostly a jumble of intellectually dishonest arguments. As with so many of society's debates, polarization of political positions has resulted in mere thinly veiled, snide attacks on the intelligence of those holding the opposite position.
Darwin hypothesized two essential prongs for his theory of evolution: (a) that species "evolved" one from another through some process; and a bolder one, (b) that the process was exclusively one of natural selection (survival of the fittest). Many people, and apparently most scientists, have accepted both prongs as fact. (See National Geographic Magazine, November 2004.)
Some religious people - the creationists - are troubled by the first prong, because it appears inconsistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis' description of creation.
Scientists are dismissive of creationists because of the fossil and geological records of the Earth's development. Creationists are hard-pressed to cite scientific evidence opposing that record, and Darwinists then claim victory for both prongs of Darwin's theory. Here, the scientists abandon their intellectual honesty.
Most people uncomfortable with Darwinism find trouble only with the second prong of his theory - the more speculative theory that development of species occurred solely through a process of natural (random) selection, without input of any "supernatural" or "intelligently designing" force. These believers in "intelligent design," if they are religious, may view Genesis as allegorical and not literal.
On the second prong of Darwinism, however, "intelligent designers" have the widely held view (88 percent, according to National Geographic) that an intelligent force has been at work in the universe with a role in the development of species.Darwinists who attack intelligent design have scant evidence for their second-prong theory - that change occurs exclusively by natural selection, in no way attributable to intelligent design. Their best argument is that slight variations appear in species that could in theory have occurred naturally.
Understandably, they are in the uncomfortable position here of proving a negative. Consequently, they most often resort to two other arguments, both fundamentally dishonest.
First, they often obfuscate the debate by falling back on the weightier evidence for Darwin's first prong. Second, they define away their proof problem. Since they cannot prove that intelligent design did not cause the changes or proliferation of species, they argue that such a notion is inherently nonscientific, and that such a causation is out of bounds in any scientific discussion.
A little intellectual honesty is in order. Having stated a theory that expressly excludes intelligent design, science should admit it is incapable of proving or disproving intelligent design. Such proof is simply beyond the tools available to mortal man.Having admitted that, they should admit - to that extent - that Darwin's second prong, natural selection of species, is not proven fact and cannot be proved fact, but merely a valid scientific theory that cannot be proved to be the ultimate causation of development of species, to the exclusion of intelligent design. They may legitimately state it is the only "scientific theory," but they must be willing to admit clearly the implications of that phrase.
As a believer in intelligent design, and one with some training in science, I can live with schools teaching Darwin's theory so long as this truth is admitted clearly within the context of that teaching. It is not asking too much of science that it admit what it can and what it cannot prove.Attorney David M. Wooldridge lives in Homewood. His e-mail address is [redacted]
© 2005 The Birmingham News
I'll offer my thoughts and snide attacks in the next post.
So the Fordham Foundation graded (almost) all the states' published science education standards and, oopsy, we Flagged it! Yes, that's Dear Alabama, right in that diagonal swath of failure extending from Kansas to Key West. Y'know, Toto, I THOUGHT we weren't in Kansas anymore, but now I'm not sure. Maybe if could espy a cadre of Discovery Institue scientists, we'd know for sure...
I'm so old, I remember when columnists writing in the Times were only allowed to call BS on GWB if they promised not to call him a liar. So now the NYT reports to choir practice and joins the chorus.It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.
More ponies, anyone?
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.I guess the good news is that class time devoted to IDiocy will be diluted by the need to make time for phrenology, alchemy, and astrology.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture, said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it ignores scientific reason.
[h]e cited America's founding documents, quoting the Declaration of Independence as he stressed, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator ... "
"That's how opposed to God Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that, was. Yet he is credited with trying to keep all mention of God out of public life. I wish Jefferson could be back here today just for 30 minutes to set things straight."
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [italics mine]Pity that. Pity that Pat doesn't comprehend, either.
Seems the good folk at the Ptolemaic Institute got their britches in a bunch over the recent Nightline expose, which reported that there was no actual controversy among reputable astronomers as to whether the sun revolves around the earth, or vice versa.Nightline's main point appears to be that there really isn't any scientific controversy over Copernicanism and intelligent epicycles. How do they know this? They checked with several Copernicanists, who told them so!
President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and "intelligent design" Monday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life. In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools. . . . Bush declined to state his personal views on "intelligent design," the belief that life forms are so complex that their creation can't be explained by Darwinian evolutionary theory alone, but rather points to intentional creation, presumably divine. . . . Bush compared the current debate to earlier disputes over "creationism," a related view that adheres more closely to biblical explanations. As governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution. On Monday the president said he favors the same approach for intelligent design "so people can understand what the debate is about."
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. " You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."
Herbert's got a column today about the efforts of Sens. McCain, Warner, and Graham to enact "legislation ... that would expressly prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody."
Tell it, Bob:
There was a dramatic encounter during the floor debate last week when Senator Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, spoke out against the legislation, saying there was no need for it because, as he put it, the detainees are not prisoners of war, "they are terrorists."
Senator McCain, of Arizona, argued that the debate "is not about who they are. It's about who we are." Americans, said Mr. McCain, "hold ourselves" to a higher standard.
At least, we used to. Honestly, you gotta love McCain when you see stuff like this, not only for forgetting to be a Bush apologist, but also for giving Jeff "I got 59% of the vote" Sessions the smackdown he so richly deserves. Remember, Senator Jeff is or has been a practicing attorney, a US Attorney, Alabama Attorney General, and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judging from his bio, what he has NOT been a member of, is the US military. Still, he should know better.
Well, Jeff, you've certainly got my vote -- for Legal Lamebrain of the Week.
Clarification: Please understand, I'm not criticizing Sen. Sessions for not having served in the military. I'm not certain that he did not, although surely his senate web bio would mention it if he did. Many fine individuals, myself included, have not. What I'm saying is, when three senators with distinguished service records think this issue is important enough to take on the White House directly, because they say it's important for our men and women in uniform, that's a good time for those of us who haven't worn the uniform to listen closely and think twice before opening our mouth and demonstrating a general state of cluelessness to the entire world.
So it turns out that when he was a mere cardinal, Joey Rat was not so high on the Boy Who Lived. Here's part of his reply to a German author critical of HP: "It is good that you shed light and inform us on the Harry Potter matter, for these are subtle seductions that are barely noticeable and, precisely because of that, deeply affect and corrupt the Christian faith in souls even before it could properly grow,"
Geez, I never meant for this blog to be all-Catholicism, all the time, but oy vey, it just gets worser and worser. As I've said elsewhere, one of the few things I've found to be proud of in my nominal, self-serving cafeteria catholicism is that at least Rome learned something from the Galileo experience, even if it took them 500 years to get around to acknowledging that, hey, he was right, and the Inquisition was wrong. Now comes Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the lead editor of the friggin' Catechism (Yes, I believe that is the official title.), with this op-ed in the NYT saying, well, scientists are wrong and we're right.Cardinal Christoph Schönborn is hardly the person to state an official position because he was outside the mainstream of Catholic thought when as the chief editor of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, he accepted the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis.
(Rev.) Sebastian L. Muccilli
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Presenting the new "Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church," Pope Benedict XVI urged Catholics around the world to memorize the most common Catholic prayers in Latin.My initial reaction? Gawd, how reactionary! But after a little thought I'm not sure it's a bad idea. Latin is, after all, the lingua franca of catholicism, if you will. Don't get me wrong; I love the mother tongue, and years of various choirs and 2 years of high school Latin only served to reinforce my feelings. I'm not sure it would mean the same to my kids, though, and certainly not my (non-papist) wife. The thing is, without the whole liturgy existing in Latin in any meaningful way, these few prayers are more like fossils in a museum, lifeless and with meaning only for the experts. And how often is the average catholic kid from any nation going to be involved in a multinational catholic "do" and be able to show off his/her all-but-forgotten mumbled Paternosher?
Learning the prayers in Latin as well as in one's own language "will help Christian faithful of different languages pray together, especially when they gather for special circumstances," the pope said June 28 as he distributed the Italian version of the compendium, which included an appendix with the Latin texts of many traditional prayers, including the Sign of the Cross, the Gloria, the Hail Mary and Come, Holy Spirit.
In the event of my incapacitation, coma, or other inability to participate in my healthcare decisions, a one-hour video recording is to be made and forwarded to Hon. Sen. Dr. William Katzensterben Frist, who will study it and make a
definitive pronouncement on my condition and prognosis.
But it might well have undercut the basis on which Dubya has been able to claim having a broad mandate, however, with resulting significant weakness in his second term.
"It would be most helpful to review activities going back six to eight years, as I assume many existing relationships have continued for that many years or longer," Di Rita wrote, noting the Southeast European Times operation. "It would be appropriate to review that activity and others like it."
"This text includes discussion of gravitation, which is only a theory, not a fact. There are other theories that attempt to explain these phenomena. You should study this material critically and make your own decisions. "After the meeting, Straitlace said he was pleased, all in all. "This just leaves our campaign against Copernicanism. But that'll wait till next month's meeting."
Two years from now, no one will remember the spending or the ostrich-skin cowboy boots. But Bush's speech, which is being derided for its vagueness and its supposed detachment from the concrete realities, will still be practical and present in the world, yielding consequences every day.
"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles..."
Go check it out.
The Post: In Iraq, there's been a steady stream of surprises. We weren't welcomed as liberators, as Vice President Cheney had talked about. We haven't found the weapons of mass destruction as predicted. The postwar process hasn't gone as well as some had hoped. Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?One definition I found for 'accountable' is, "obliged to accept responsibility." I honestly can't think of any word less applicable to GWB and his entire administration.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful.
Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
(on the eve of his assassination.)
The result of such a policy would be chaos - but chaos in Iraq, the sources for the story seem to think [thinly-veiled reference to Mr. Scowcroft, methinks], is well worth it if they can get in return a political defeat for President Bush.
Eventually the Yankee has to shoot him.I think this tells us all we need to know about Mr. Frum's approach to discussions across a chasm of differing world-views (and no, I'm not defending the three-coin king, imaginary people, please pay attention!).
Yesterday I found myself the target of a similar kind of obdurate lunk-headedness.
In each case, the response is beyond, "Please don't confuse me with the facts." It's more like, "My opinion is perfectly as valid as yours on this technical and detailed topic, despite the fact that I'm in college and you've made this area your life's work for umpteen years."
As we say, developing...
I swear that I have never taken money -- either directly or indirectly -- from any political campaign or government agency -- whether federal, state, or local -- in exchange for any service performed in my job as ajournalist(orcommentator, or blogger, or whatever you think I should be called).
In the [White House] e-mail, [Rove's deputy Peter] Wehner, director of White House Strategic Initiatives, . . . criticized Democrats as "the party of obstruction and opposition. It is the Party of the Past."
Asked if it was improper for the government to send a partisan e-mail discussing political strategy, McClellan said he disagreed with that characterization.[emphasis mine]
Uhh, which characterization, exactly, Scotty? E-mail? Strategery? 'Cause I don't see any way a sentient being could disagree with "partisan" or "political." If said sentient being were being honest, that is.
