England and St. George

It is easy to be amused by this:

[...] the Church of England is considering rejecting England's patron saint St George on the grounds that his image is too warlike and may offend Muslims.

Clergy have started a campaign to replace George with St Alban, a Christian martyr in Roman Britain.

[...]

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams indicated support for an upgrade for Alban, although he is said to be cautious about relegation for George.

He told the Sunday Times: 'I think St Alban is irreplaceable in the history of English Christianity. Perhaps we ought to raise his profile because it's the beginning of the church in this country with martyrdom, wisdom and courage.'

[...]

The saint became an English hero during the crusades against the Muslim armies that captured Jerusalem in the 11th century.

An apparition of George is said to have appeared to the crusader army at the Battle of Antioch in 1098.

His dragon-slaying legend is thought to have begun as an allegory of Diocletian's persecution of Christians.

Alban was martyred in 304 AD on the site of St Alban's abbey in the Hertfordshire city that now bears his name.

A Roman army officer, he was said to have converted after sheltering a Christian.

I am not sure to what degree St. Alban needs his profile raised, as he is easily as recognizable in the Anglican community as St. George. Not that I have anything against St. Alban, but I think this is yet another example of the Archbishop trying to strike a diplomatic note and missing the point completely.

There is a Byzantine icon of St. George (sans dragon) on my cubicle wall as I write this. On the back is a brief bio of the saint:

St. George was born of Christian parents (275 AD). During his childhood, his father died as a martyr. He grew up in Lydda of Palestine, the native town of his mother.

At the age of 18, he was recruited into the Roman army. Handsome, with an athletic and gentle appearance, clever and educated, courageous and brave, he was promoted to the highest military ranks in a short time.

Now Diocletian, the Roman Emperor, declared a severe persecution against the Christians and demanded that all his soldiers and officers offer pagan sacrifices as proof of their loyalty.

St. George was the first to refuse. He gave up his military commission, confessed his faith openly, and made himself available to the persecutors, obviously with the purpose of inspiring courage among the Christians.

Diocletian, unsuccessful in his efforts to change St. George's mind, ordered to put him under the cruelest tortures. He endured his martyrdom with great courage which caused the conversion of many officers and soldiers, and encouraged the Christians to stand firm in their faith. Finally, he was beheaded at Nicomedia on April 23 in the year 303 AD.

What exactly is "warlike" about this image? There are several striking similarities between this story and the one about St. Alban. As to the suggestion that St. George may not be an actual historical person, what of it? I happen to believe that he was, but the point of the story is to demonstrate an ideal of courage under duress and standing up for convictions. That is surely an ideal that we need to recover now more than ever. I would understand if the nation of England were to become so secularized that it decided to abandon its Christian heritage. But there is no excuse of the Church of England to be aiding such a movement.

The crux of the issue, of course, is not the secularization of the country but the appeasement of Muslims. The association of St. George's cross with the crusades is undeniable. But one ought to remember that the crusades were not an act of aggression by Europeans against Arab lands, but a defense of land they already owned against the invader. There are many reasons the crusades were not ultimately successful, but chief among them must be the lack of unity and conviction within the Christian camp. St. George went to his death, if the legend is to be believed, rather than bow to public pressure or pagan religion. If the Church of England is to continue its Christian witness, it will have to take note of his example and refuse to bow to either of the false gods of secularism or Islam.

(Via Mere Comments)

Copy Cat Killing

Oh sure, just because we dropped a bomb on our current nemesis, you guys have to go and do it too?

An Israel Air Force strike in Gaza City last night killed Jamal Abu Samhadana, head of the Popular Resistance Committees. At least three other PRC operatives were also killed.

Abu Samhadana was a key player in rocket attacks on Israel and a suspect in the fatal 2003 bombing of a U.S. convoy in the Gaza Strip. In April, he was appointed head of the new Interior Minister security force in Gaza.

Well, fine. And, er, nice shooting guys.

ZARQAWI DEAD!

I've been trying to post this all morning but blogger has been down (undoubtedly as a side-effect of everyone trying to comment on this good news). Here's the story from Reuters:

U.S. warplanes killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq blamed for bombings, beheadings and assassinations, in a strike which President George W. Bush said on Thursday had delivered justice.

In one of the most significant developments in Iraq since the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Jordanian-born Zarqawi was killed on Wednesday in a joint U-S.-Iraqi operation helped by tip-offs from Iraqis and Jordanian intelligence.

Here is the video of the bombing (not terribly interesting, IMHO).

Of course, the caveats have already begun:
Zarqawi leaves gap but insurgency will outlive him
Zarqawi's death a relief, but not cure, for Bush

Fine. Look, no one expects this to end the insurgency over night. But, to those who are already trying to minimize the effect of this victory I have only one thing to say: you took a shower this morning, knowing full well that more dirt would accumulate in the coming day. Killing Zarqawi is like taking a long, hot shower after a several days of heavy work. We have more work to do, but for the moment lets enjoy the smell of the soap and the feeling of being temporarily clean.


NOTE: Vinnie at the Jawa Report links to this CNN story, noting that Zarqawi was betrayed by members of his own al Qaeda group. Encouraging.

UPDATE: I guess Blogger went down for unrelated reasons. (Via: Althouse)

What Do I Really Think About Immigration?

Dustin asks this question in the comments to the post below. The answer is a bit longer than will fit in the comments section, so I created a separate post.

1. Immigration is economically good for the country, other things being equal. The problems with immigration (and all increases in population) are generally related to defects in law enforcement or attempts at socialism. Both of these are made worse by a failing moral order. People that are basically law-abiding and productive are of mutual benefit to each other.

2. I also think that the spiritual value of immigration is often underestimated. We are a country that has historically loved liberty tempered by religious restraint. Inviting people into the country from places that don't have those values is good for them (of course) but also good practice for us. The Old Testament is full of exhortations to treat the foreigner as an equal, provided he will obey the law and serve the Lord. But, as with the economic factors mentioned above, this requires that we actually teach these values, both to the immigrants and to our native citizens. But this of course is the job of the church (or religious organizations if you don't think, as I do, that this should be a Christian country.) As with the economic situation above, this is not being done and that causes problems. But in this case, the government is doing too much (i.e. trying to run the school system) rather than too little.

These two factors are inter-related. I believe very strongly in the separation of church and state, but we currently have the situation where the state is trying to take on both roles and the church is making itself irrelevant. But it is only in a society that has a properly functioning civil law and moral precepts that man is not a curse to man. The extent to which we are losing that proper functioning is the extent to which things like immigration and over-crowding will become problems. But a good government focuses on the causes rather than the symptoms, which is why I don't buy the current Republican policy line on immigration.

Bush on Imigration

Everyone but me has been talking about Bush's speech on Monday. I am not too interested in the topic, but a couple of comments relate to things that I care deeply about.

First, to set the stage, I hold the view that the strength of America lies primarily in the ideas around which her culture is based, not the geographical advantages or the ethnic identity of her people. So the issue of illegal immigration is interesting primarily as a casebook of reconciling biblical principles of charity toward strangers with (equally biblical) ideals of the rule of law. The laws must be obeyed, but if the offend against charity they may be changed in an orderly way. This seems pretty obvious and non-controversial, but I am amazed how often people argue either (from the Left) that the laws are unjust so they should be ignored or (from the Right) the laws are the laws so they should never be changed. They don't put it quite like that, of course, but that is what it often amounts to.

OK, that's the background. I was interested to read, in the Corner (here, here and here), that President Bush may very well be operating from similar Christian convictions:

[...]I get asked this question all the time and the conclusion I've come to is this: The president is morally and emotionally opposed to immigration enforcement, especially on the Mexican border. He sees it as uncompassionate and un-Christian, at best a necessary evil that must be entered into with the greatest reluctance and abandoned as soon as is practical.

Fascinating.

Of course, this doesn't in itself prevent Bush's policy from being muddled. The rule of law is still important and the law cannot do its job if the expectations are constantly being changed based on expediency. That brings me to the following off-hand remark in Mickey Kaus' critique of the president's immigration policy:

I agree that this is the deal that can be cut--in part because there seems to be nothing all that terrible about a legal guest worker program, as long as it draws its workers from those waiting in line outside the country (and not those who've jumped the queue and already snuck in). Guest workers aren't illegal immigrants, after all--and one way to discourage illegals is to give opportunities to legals.

This has always seemed to make the most sense: make legal citizenship as easy as possible so that the incentive to cross illegally is reduced, then come down hard on anyone who still tries to cross illegally. In this scenario, you can be pretty draconian in enforcing the border, since it is reasonably certain that anyone who can't get in legally has malicious intent.

UPDATE: Err, sorry. The link to Kaus' article doesn't go directly to the post I wanted. (I thought he was getting better about that.) The quote is from the 05/17 post at 12:42 AM.

World Press Freedom Day

I have been ignoring Jane at Armies of Liberation for far too long. Check out her current post on World Press Freedom Day:

As the United States celebrates World Press Freedom Day, we hail the courageous sacrifices made by journalists around the world to report the facts, even at the cost of their lives and their freedom. Every day brave men and women risk harassment, beatings, detention, imprisonment and even death simply for seeking to share the truth with others around the world.

Read it all.

St. Luke's of the Mountains

My wife and I spent a lovely morning at a meeting with fellow Anglicans concerned about the state and direction of the Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA) here. In February of 2006, St. Luke's left the diocese of Los Angelese and aligned itself under the episcopal oversight of the Anglican Province of Uganda. As many Anglicans are considering the same move, or more likely do not have any clue as to how to respond to the growing apostasy within ECUSA, some lay memebers are seeking ways to reach out to like-minded, biblically orthodox Anglicans.

The chuch grounds are lovely, as you can see, but what is really exciting is the prospect of actually making progress in the renewal of the Episcopal witness in the United States. I have been wanting something like this to happen for decades, but, as an outsider, have been limited in how much I could do. The issue isn't really about homosexuality but about the authority of scripture and our need for grace and repentance. I will post more on the subject as I learn more.

Buy a Gun Day

NOTE: This post was actually created on 4/19 but I am backdating it to comply with the official date. I did mean to post earlier, but, being the day before Easter, there were quite a few higher priorities. I really bought the gun two weeks ago but, due to California's regressive 10-day waiting period (which should have gone away in '98 when the NICS replaced the Brady Act), I actually picked it up on the proper day.

I did buy a gun this year: a Springfield Armory XD Subcompact in .40 S&W. Nice little gun, but it took me awhile to get used to the boxey look of the front end. What finally persuaded me to prefer this one over the Glock 27 was that it is slightly heavier which is a plus when shooting a powerful cartridge from such a small gun. Also, it is slightly (0.03 inches) shorter, which makes it easier to conceal. Probably won't make that much difference in the long run, of course.

I was actually in the market for a Glock 33, having a long time infatuation with the 357Sig cartridge, but no one seems to be selling it. Not surprising, really, as the caliber never caught on.

My next gun will probably be a full-sized .45 of some sort. I wanted one this time around, but I needed something concealable and was tired of carrying around my old Jennings .22 (and frankly a little embarrassed). One of these would be nice, but only in my dreams.

Update: Cowboy Blob has a roundup of what other folks bought. (Via: Alphecca)

Daytime TV Bad for Your Brain?

Well, duh. But now there may be scientific evidence:

Could Oprah and General Hospital be bad for your brain?

New research suggests that elderly women who watch daytime soap operas and talk shows are more likely to suffer from cognitive impairment than women who abstain from such fare.

I love the next line:

Researchers stress that it's not clear if watching these TV shows leads to weaker brainpower, or vice-versa. And they say it's possible that another explanation might be at work.

So, we don't really know if watching TV makes you stupid, or being stupid makes you watch TV. Heh.

I'm still waiting for the study on prime time programming and network news.

Bloggers Invited to Translate Saddam Documents

Roger L Simon has the story:

Back in mid-February Pajamas Media went to Washington to cover the Intelligence Summit and did video interviews with Congressman Hoekstra (chair of the House Intell Committee), former DCI Woolsey and Richard Perle, among others. In all those interviews we discussed our idea - new to all of them - that the myriad untranslated Saddam tapes and documents be released to the blogosphere for translation. The three men all, to one degree or another, liked the idea, although they were surprised by it. Today, it was announced that at the instigation of Hoekstra these documents have been released by the Pentagon for ... and this is how it was worded on the Brit Hume Show on Fox News ... for translation by the blogosphere.

Whoa! This may well be the biggest story of the year.

Simon is collecting translations here: iraq dash-sign translations at-sign pajamas media dot-character com

The Coming Collapse of China

Front Page interviews Gordon Chang author of The Coming Collapse of China:

As China gets more prosperous, it is becoming less stable. Senior Beijing officials now face the dilemma of all reforming authoritarians: economic success endangers their continued control. As Harvard's Samuel Huntington has noted, sustained modernization is the enemy of one-party systems. Revolutions occur under many conditions, but especially when political institutions do not keep up with the social forces unleashed by economic change. And as history shows us, nothing irritates a rising social class like inflexible political institutions. The most interesting trend about protests in recent years is not that they are becoming more frequent, getting much larger, or growing more violent. The most interesting trend is that we are now seeing middle-class Chinese, the beneficiaries of the last quarter century of progress, taking to the streets.

[...]

Unfortunately, positive change will not come as fast as it should, in part because we have created a set of perverse incentives. The Chinese engage in bad behavior. We reward them. So they continue their irresponsible conduct. We reward them still more. In these circumstances, why would they ever change?

So is our policy toward China succeeding? Not yet. Will it succeed? Yes, in the long term. But there may be no long term.

Lots more at the link. I think Chang may be a bit optimistic in predicting the collapse of Chinese Communism by the end of the decade, but his analysis seems fairly level-headed.

Defining Persecution

I received the following email from Vision America:

In less than 3 weeks (on March 27-28) Vision America's The War On Christians Conference will convene at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington D.C.

[...]

Let me tell you about just one of our panels - Christian Persecution: Reports From The Front Lines.

This is a topic that is usually near to my heart, but continuing on, I found what they were really talking about:

The panelists all have experienced anti-Christian discrimination firsthand. They are:

Lloyd Marcus, an African-American artist, who initially had his paintings censored from a public showing for Black History Month, because they contained church scenes.

Pastor Tom Crouse, from Massachusetts, who was charged over $6,200 for police protection for a public meeting on coming out of the homosexual lifestyle, in an attempt to stifle his First Amendment rights.

Michael Marcavage was one of the Philadelphia Four - Christian activists who were arrested and prosecuted for quietly witnessing at a gay festival. If convicted, each could have been sentenced to up to 47 years in prison.

Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt is a Navy Chaplain who was almost discharged from the service for publicly praying in Jesus name.

OK, I don't deny that these are important issues, and the folks involved are right to make the issue public. But is this persecution? Compare these problems with the sort of thing going on in other parts of the world.

INDIA:

After preaching God’s Word at a New Years service at Beradakia Church in his native town of Baliguda, Kandhamala district in India, 35-year-old Pastor Jimendra Nayak (Mantu) never made it home to the village of Barakhema. At 8:00 p.m. on January 1, 2006, Nayak took an auto rickshaw after service to return to his home in Puri district, where he has lived for two years and served as pastor of Indian Church Assembly. He didn’t leave the vehicle alive.

[...]

It is reported that when Nayak’s widow, Sashrekh Pradhan, and relatives initially attempted to file a complaint looking into the suspected murder, but the police officer to which it was submitted rejected it. The person assisting the widow as she prepared a petition for an investigation into the death of her husband was harshly rebuked by the presiding officer. No inquiry about the cause of Nayak’s death was made before the complaint, and no action was taken once it was filed. For six weeks following the pastor’s death, relatives have unsuccessfully tried numerous times to attain a postmortem report.

[...]

Furthermore, Pastor Nayak’s widow and relatives divulged that radical Hindus targeted him for some time, approaching him on numerous occasions because of his witness to Hindus. He was threatened and restrained from carrying out his missionary work in the community.

North Korea:

It is believed that tens of thousands of Christians are currently suffering in North Korean prison camps where they face cruel abuses, according to the 2006 World Watch List report. Some think the hermit regime has detained more political and religious prisoners than any other country in the world. On occasion, North Koreans become Christians after crossing the border with China and entering into contact with local Christians. But many are exposed as believers when they return to North Korea and are targeted to be caught. Many face torture and death. Though no exact figures can be given, Open Doors’ staff estimates that hundreds of Christians were killed by the regime in 2005.

This is not to mention Saudi Arabia (number 2 on the above mentioned World Watch List), Yemen, Indonesia, Burma and many other countries where there are actual death penalties for converting to Christianity.

Dubai to Divest?

Rossputin notes:

CNBC is reporting that Dubai Ports World will transfer the ports that they would have run as part of their takeover of P&O to a US Entity.

Senator John Warner was on the floor of the Senate announcing the transfer of the US ports to a US investor. I think they gave him the news because he has been one of the few voices of reason in the Senate on the issue.

There is no link in the above blog, but here is the story from the Washington Post:

The United Arab Emirates company that was attempting to take over management operations at six U.S. ports announced today that it will divest itself of all American interests.

The announcement appears to head off a major confrontation that was brewing between Congress and the Bush administration over the controversial deal.

[...]

It was not immediately clear how the divesture would be handled or what U.S. company would take over the operation.

Warner's announcement came just hours after Republican leaders from the House and Senate met with President Bush to tell him Congress appeared ready to block the deal.

This has always struck me as a tempest in a teapot, but it illustrates how difficult this administration seems to find comminicating its ideas. I suspect that Bush, who ran as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, has never really understood the philosophical underpinings of conservatism. This was abundantly clear as he fumbled with the definition of "judicial activism" in his explanation of the Harriet Miers nomination, and his earlier inability to persuasively argue his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. (Hint: They were both bad ideas to start with.)

SD Governor Signs Abortion Ban

Governor Rounds has signed the bill:

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed a bill Monday that bans nearly all abortions in the state, legislation in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973.

[...]

"The reversal of a Supreme Court opinion is possible," Rounds said, pointing to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that reversed the 1896 ruling that states could segregate public facilities by race if equal facilities were offered.

The bill "will give the United States Supreme Court a similar opportunity to reconsider an earlier opinion."

It is tactically smart to associate the Roe v Wade case in the public mind with that other egregious example of bad jursiprudence Plessy v Ferguson although I think it would have been better to mention it by name rather than the cryptic "1896 ruling". (Perhaps that was the work of the editor at CNN?)

Nevertheless, I have to stand by my previous prediction that this gambit will fail at the Supreme Court level. We can only count on at most 4 votes (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) and the latter two have not yet established that they are as sympathetic to pro-live arguments as many are assuming. If people are counting on Kennedy to go with the as-yet-not-proven pro-life faction they are forgetting his history.

As lawyers and court watchers have long suspected, the Supreme Court was ready to effectively overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1992, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy got cold feet, and the vote went the other way.

If they are banking on the "strong possibility" of Justice Stevens retiring (as this NYT piece obliquely suggests) I think they are living in a dream world. But even if that should come to pass, as I mentioned previously, passing this law would make it much less likely that a pro-life justice will survive the confirmation hearings. Even the National Right to Life Committee seems to think this is a bad idea:

Cristina Minniti, a spokeswoman for the National Right to Life Committee, said no one from her organization was available to be interviewed on the South Dakota law. Instead, she issued a one paragraph statement which stated, in part: "Currently there are at least five votes, a majority, on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade."

The NRLC website does not even mention this as of 8:30 PST.

(New York Times link via Althouse)

UPDATE: Here is the text of the law.

St. Paris?

I don't really care who wins the Oscars tonight and I certainly don't have any predictions. But this story caught my attention:

Paris Hilton is thrilled to be playing Mother Teresa in an upcoming biopic.

[...]

"The preliminary script has been readied. And the proceeds of the film would go to the Missionaries of Charity. By June this year, the groundwork for the film would be complete and I propose to begin shooting in West Bengal and several foreign countries in early 2007."

Hilton explained, "It's such an honour. I'm so excited. I really want to learn more about this amazing woman, so that's what I'm doing in a few months."

In preparation for the role, Paris is apparently joining the Order of Mother Teresa missionaries, and will travel around Bangalore and Calcutta to care for the sick.

No doubt there is some attempt at shock value going on here, but I think it may be worthy of respect. If people are drawn to a film about Mother Theresa for the mere spectacle of seeing how her polar opposite handles the role, they will still be watching a film about Mother Theresa. And playing the role of a saint (or even a candidate for beatification) may well have a salutary effect on Ms. Hilton's character. It could hardly do much harm, could it?

Of course, all of this assumes that the film will be well-written and respectful and that Paris Hilton can actually act. I have no idea whether any of these things will turn out to be true. But to those of my faith who are already getting set to be outraged, consider: if sluts such as you and I can act the role of the Bride of Christ, why should Ms. Hilton not be given a shot at an admittedly lesser role?

Tagged!

Sonia tagged me. I am supposed to tag 4 other bloggers, but I promised I wouldn't do this after the Book Meme:

1: Black and White or Color; how do you prefer your movies?
Color. Some movies belong in black & white such as "The Wind", "M", or even "Shadows and Fog". But some old movies are in black & white just because the director didn't have a choice.

2: What is the one single subject that bores you to near-death?
I am not easily bored, but there is still more than one. "Other People's Sex Life" springs to mind.

3: MP3s, CDs, Tapes or Records: what is your favorite medium for prerecorded music?
Probably CDs. I haven't really gotten into MP3s, and I don't quite trust the medium for long-term storage. I mostly listen to tapes in the car, but that is just because I am too lazy to install a CD player. You can probably tell that music isn't a big part of my life, huh?

4: You are handed one first class trip plane ticket to anywhere in the world and ten million dollars cash. All of this is yours provided that you leave and not tell anyone where you are going … Ever. This includes family, friends, everyone. Would you take the money and ticket and run?
Socrates refused to leave Athens when his life was at stake. I would be embarrassed to betray family, friends, and church for a mere $10 million.

5: Seriously, what do you consider the world’s most pressing issue now?
The most pressing issue has always been our long war against God. The most obvious manifestation of that war seems to be the spread of Islam. Go ahead and tell me in the comments how stupid I am for not acknowledging that Islam is a valid approach to God...

6: How would you rectify the world’s most pressing issue?
Pray. Evangelize. Try to set a good example. (Oh, wait, that's redundant.)

7: You are given the chance to go back and change one thing in your life; what would that be?
I never look back and I don't really subscribe to the Donny Darko school of Calvinism, so this question is kind of meaningless to me. There are plenty of things that I have done that a better person wouldn't have. But I suspect that changing those things would make me a different person, and I can't consciously will my own destruction.

To put this a little less abstractly, in High School I used to fight with my girlfriend constantly. While I shouldn't have done that, the knowledge of my failure to live up to even my own low standards eventually led me to Christ. And if I had stayed with her, I never would have met my wife and she might not have returned to the faith without my encouragement. So who would have been better off?

8: You are given the chance to go back and change one event in world history, what would that be?
This is just the Donny Darko question with a bigger bunny suit. The same principle applies.

That said, I do wish the crusaders had not sacked Constantinople in 1204. But that event came at the nadir of a whole series of disasters and villainy so I have a hard time singling it out for correction.

9: A night at the opera, or a night at the Grand Ole’ Opry –Which do you choose?
Uggh. Can't I just give them both my ticket and $10 million and make them go away? Unless you count Gilbert and Sullivan as opera which I adore.

10: What is the one great unsolved crime of all time you’d like to solve?
Jack the Ripper, if only because he is a discredit to the name.

11: One famous author can come to dinner with you. Who would that be, and what would you serve for the meal?
Ayn Rand and C. S. Lewis, together. I'm not sure what I'd serve. Probably pizza.

12: You discover that John Lennon was right, that there is no hell below us, and above us there is only sky — what’s the first immoral thing you might do to celebrate this fact?
Piss on John Lennon's grave? Seriously, this is the wrong question on so many levels I hardly know where to begin.

First, the assumption that Christians are motivated by threat of hell or bribery of heaven is inaccurate (though perhaps understandable). These are often motivations to convert (since the natural man is primarily motivated by self-interest) but after conversion one comes to love truth, goodness and beauty for their own sake (or for God's sake which ammounts to much the same thing).

Second, assuming there is no transcendant standard, it makes no sense to talk about committing "immorality". One never acts immorally from one's own conscious perspective, actions can only be judged immoral from an external standard (ie God's, Society's or Freud's inernalized Superego, which is distinct from the conscious Ego).

Third, it makes little sense to talk about committing immoral acts "in celebration". Immorality is only fun if it is contrast to a standard that is perceived as tyrannical or unreasonable. If there were really no such standard, immorality would be seen for what it is -- self-destructive and harmful to others. This is assuming you can get over the contradiction mentioned in point 2.

Finally, on a more personal note, I reject the entire premise of the question. When I was an atheist, I felt that the only intellectually honest response to a godless universe was a desire to destroy all false promises of happiness. That initially meant religion and social mores, of course, but I eventually came to see that it pretty much included all personal illusions such as emotion, pleasure and damn near everything else. Pain and pleasure are only truly appreciated in memory -- the actual experience is gone by the time you can identify it. But who will remember those subjective experiences five minutes after I am dead? The thing that kept me from being a full-blown anarchist/nihilist was that I could never answer an even more important question: who will experience my intellectual honesty five minutes after I am dead?

Hope for the Muslim World

Pastorius links to an interesting article in the New York Sun. The following excerpt caught my eye as it illustrates a point we both have been making in several different ways:

Ms. Darwish, 57, said she had not met a Jew until she moved to America at age 30. As a child, she was taught, "Don't take candy from any stranger, it could be a Jew trying to poison you."

Then, ten years ago, her brother in Gaza had a stroke. A panic ensued over whether to send him to Cairo Hospital in Egypt or Hadassah Medical Center in Israel. The matter was settled by an Egyptian diplomat in Gaza: "If you want him to live, you send him right now to Hadassah." And so his life was saved.

Ms. Darwish said that while her mother was in Jerusalem taking care of her brother, she noticed that Jews who had been kicked out of Egypt by Nasser, who had confiscated their property, had rebuilt their lives in Israel. "They are not left in refugee camps like we did to the Palestinians," Ms. Darwish said.

South Dakota House Bans Abortion

The bill has not been passed by the State Senate yet:

Lawmakers in South Dakota overwhelmingly approved legislation Thursday that would prohibit almost all abortions in the state. House Bill 1215 passed 47-22, after representatives voted against inserting amendments that would exempt women impregnated as the result of rape or incest. The bill, which now goes to the state Senate, makes an exception if the women’s life is in danger.

[...]

Representative Roger Hunt (R-Brandon), the chief sponsor of the South Dakota bill, said the timing is right for the "Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act," in the wake of the new Supreme Court appointments: conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

I can't see how they arrived at that conclusion. Even assuming Roberts and Alito both uphold this law, that only gives 4 pro votes (counting Scalia and Thomas). But where is the 5th vote going to come from? The argument that technological advances change the nature of the debate is a good point, but I can't see any of the remaining judges reversing precedent on that basis alone.

And I don't think it is wise to count on either Roberts or Alito to vote to overturn Roe v Wade. They are beyond political consequences, but they will still want to establish their credibility on the issue of non-ideological jurisprudence which they both empasized strongly at their confirmation hearings. Both new justices must know that voting the party line so early in the game could very well scuttle any future judge's ability to use that argument. Which would in turn mean we will never get that 5th vote.

Army Chaplain Silenced

From the Washington Times:

An evangelical chaplain serving in Iraq has been forbidden to preach at chapel services after his comments about military intolerance toward certain Christian expressions got him into hot water with the Army.

[...]

The chaplain criticized one of his supervisors, Lt. Col. Phillip Wright of Fort Drum in New York, by name and gave details about how chaplains of all faiths were being pressured to offer up only nonsectarian prayers.

People should not over-react to this news, but I think it highlights a basic problem with a society committed to pluralism. On the one hand, we don't want the First Ammendment rights of our soldiers suspended (and the ability to pray in the name of Jesus is reputedly pretty important to Christians :). On the other hand, joining the Army does involve a certain obligation to follow orders and not criticize the leadership. And yet, how could Mr. Stertzbach have called attention to this matter without at least potentially running afoul of his superiors.

It is a difficult question and I confess to not knowing the proper balance. I tend to sympathize with religious freedom end of the spectrum, but I do realize that the Army can't function in war-time insubordination.

Of course, this problem would go away if we just instituted Sharia...

Cheney Shoots, Scores...

...own goal.

Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and injured a man during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, his spokeswoman said Sunday.

Harry Whittington, 78, was "alert and doing fine" after Cheney sprayed Whittington with shotgun pellets on Saturday at the Armstrong Ranch in south Texas, said property owner Katharine Armstrong.

Note the photo attached to the story which includes a completely gratuitous reference to the NRA. Maybe if Cheney had spent more time studying the Gun Safety Rules published by the oldest firearms educational organization in the country, this might have been avoided.
(Via: Althouse)

UPDATE: Sonia has a hilarious take on the story:

Instead of invading a country to remove its crazed dictator from power, maybe Dick Cheney should just invite its leader to go hunting with him ?

But which one ?

Happy Birthday

Carol Platt Liebau

Meanwhile, Back In Iraq...

...Sistani emerges as a voice of calm and common sense:

Iraq's top Shiite cleric also weighed in on the controversy, condemning the publication of the cartoons, but suggesting Muslims were partly to blame for distorting the image of Islam.

"We strongly denounce and condemn this horrific action," Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani said.

Mr. al-Sistani's remarks, posted on his website and dated Jan. 31, refrained from any calls for protests against the cartoons. Mr. al-Sistani referred to "misguided and oppressive" segments of the Muslim community and said their actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."

Sonia remarks, "It's quite ironic that the only Muslim country where there are no widespread anti-cartoon riots is... Iraq."

Ironic, perhaps, but hardly surprising. Given the increasing evidence that this entire "protest" was a ruse to distract Muslims from the failure of their tyrannical rulers, it makes perfect sense that the voice of reason should come from the epicenter of the liberation. Alternatively, you could explain this as a result of the Coalition military presence. Those most likely to protest would be the "insurgents" and they are too busy trying to stay out of American gun-sights to afford a public protest. In either case, I am happier about the war effort than I have been in months. Congratulations Mr. Sistani. You are a credit to your country!

UPDATE: But the French still don't get it! Note the paragraphs after the one cited above:

France's Foreign Minister said Friday he was shocked that Islamic hardliners have burned flags to protest caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed printed in European newspapers.

[...]

However, the minister told LCI television: "I'm shocked and I find it unacceptable that, because there were caricatures in the West, extremists can burn flags or adopt fundamentalist or extremist positions that would suggest the caricaturists were right."

Look, monsieur, the problem isn't the flag burning or the positions that they are adopting that is the problem. Those are perfectly legitimate (if somewhat misguided) expressions of free-speech. The problem is with the arson, death threats and other acts of violence.

That Infamous German Sense of Humor

Just when you thought it was safe to start praising Europeans vis a vis freedom of speech:

GERMAN cops will use sweeping powers to collar England fans doing Basil Fawlty-style Hitler impressions at the World Cup.
Yobs will be instantly banged up for TWO WEEKS if they goose-step like John Cleese in his most famous Fawlty Towers scene.

And hard core louts who give Nazi salutes — like the one jokingly made by Michael Barrymore in Celebrity Big Brother — could be hauled before a judge within 24 hours.

If convicted of inciting hatred they will face jail terms of up to THREE YEARS.

Wearing joke German helmets or any offensive insignia will also result in a stretch behind bars.

Reagan Economist Slams Bush

This book makes some points that we principled conservatives have been making all along:

The title is stunning: “Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.” The author is Bruce Bartlett, an economist who worked in the Reagan administration. The publisher is Doubleday, not some highly suspect publishing company with a political axe to grind.

[...]

It is no secret that many conservatives who consider themselves true Reaganites are disdainful of Bush, but Bartlett doesn’t pull any punches in his indictment of a man who, in his opinion, has betrayed many of Reagan’s principles.

While the White House portrays Bush as a conservative president with a conservative agenda, he writes that conservatives know better.

“He is simply a partisan Republican, anxious to improve the fortunes of his party, to be sure. But he is perfectly willing to jettison conservative principles at a moment’s notice to achieve that goal,” Bartlett writes.

[Bartlett] faults Bush’s tax cuts, calling them ill-designed. He finds his trade policy too dotted with protectionist moves, adding that he has the worst policy on free trade since Herbert Hoover. The Medicare prescription drug bill is “the worst legislation in history” because of his massive future costs, he says, and he has not vetoed a single bill as he increased the size of government. Two of the unkindest cuts in the book: Bill Clinton had a better record on controlling the deficit, he says, and Bush has the many of the same kinds of policies as Richard Nixon.

I think it is unlikely that the Bush administration will take this criticism to heart at this late date. Hopefully, the contenders for the Republican ticket in '08 will do so.

UPDATE: From the same Chicago Tribune site, could this be a related story?

Claude A. Allen, the president’s domestic policy adviser, turned in his letter of resignation today at the White House, the Bush administration acknowledged tonight.

Safe Self-Harm

No kidding -- Safe Self-Harm:

NURSES want patients who are intent on harming themselves to be provided with clean blades so that they can cut themselves more safely.
They say people determined to harm themselves should be helped to minimise the risk of infection from dirty blades, in the same way as drug addicts are issued with clean needles.

This could include giving the “self-harm” patients sterile blades and clean packets of bandages or ensuring that they keep their own blades clean. Nurses would also give patients advice about which parts of the body it is safer to cut.

The proposal for “safe” self-harm — which is to be debated at the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) Congress in April — is likely to provoke controversy.

At present nurses are expected to stop anyone doing physical harm to themselves and to confiscate any sharp objects ranging from razor blades to broken glass and tin cans.

The mind boggles. Back in the '80s, when we were debating the slippery slope of needle-exchange programs, I can confidently state that no one, No One! ever suggested this as a possible outcome. If ScrappleFace had published this as a satire, it would have seemed too surreal to be funny. Reading this article, I flashed on Alice Cooper's line "You'd even force-feed a diabetic a candy cane". And the one after that as well of course.

(Via Tammy)

Sauce for the Goose

Iran retaliates against the Mohammad-as-terrorist cartoons with cartoons mocking the holocaust:

IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.

"It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.
He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.

Stupid as it may seem, this is actually a step up for the Islamists. Turning the tables on Western ridicule is a much healthier response than the typical fire-bombing-rioting-beheading schtick.

Still, one might find fault with the choice of subject matter. If it had been an Israeli newspaper publishing the original cartoons, mocking the holocaust might have made a certain amount of sense -- but Denmark? I am not aware that Denmark, or Europe in general for that matter, is particularly sensitive about aspersions being cast on the Jews. In fact, Europe has its share of holocaust-deniers and anti-semites, so the parallel to mocking Mohammad is pretty obviously off-target.

Or is the subtext another lame Jews-secretly-control-the-world conspiracy theory? Gotta get over that, Farid. Besides the fact that we've all heard it before, you have to ask yourself what difference it will make. Where is the retaliation if when we (speaking broadly on behalf of Western Civilization) mock your prophet, you ... do pretty much what you've been doing all along?

Still, nice try. If you manage to avoid getting yourselves nuked in the next few years, maybe this will mark the beginning of your return to civilization.

Is TV Teaching Criminals New Tricks?

This is something I've always wondered about:

When Tammy Klein began investigating crime scenes eight years ago, it was virtually unheard of for a killer to use bleach to clean up a bloody mess.

Today, the use of bleach, which destroys DNA, is not unusual in a planned homicide, said the senior criminalist from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

Klein and other experts attribute such sophistication to television crime dramas like "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," which give criminals helpful tips on how to cover up evidence.

As noted in my tag-line, I'm not a fan of TV in any form. The one exception I would generally make are the informative shows such as (non-evolutionary) science shows and some of the real-crime stories found on CourtTV. The article mentions CSI, which is fictional, but the same principle applies to the real-life forensic shows. Food for thought...

To be fair, the information provided is available in any number of sources, so one technically can't blame TV for spilling the beans. But, as mentioned elsewhere in the article, criminals are usually quite dumb and wouldn't normally be expected to research their crimes at the local library or on the internet. But TV, which rewards passivity, can broadcast ideas that the average criminal would normally be too lazy or too ignorant to obtain on his own.

Bethlehem Under Hamas

Speaking of paying the Jizya, this story is disturbing on many levels:

While Israelis struggle to come to terms with the election of Hamas in Palestinian elections last week, another group also is worried by the rise of the avowedly Islamist organization -- the Christian Arab minority centered here in Jesus' birthplace.

The Palestinian draft constitution of 2003 establishes Islam as the official religion while noting that Christianity will be "equally revered." It also names Islamic Sharia law as "a major source for legislation."

[...]

"I know they are not Taliban," said one Bethlehem mother of two, who did not want her name used. "But I wonder what they mean by 'Islamic.' We are Christian, we don't want trouble."

[...]

"There are groups putting rumors into the minds of Christians, that there will be registrations," for example, said the mayor. "I say, 'Don't worry. Hamas has promised not to.' "

But there are those articles in the Palestinian constitution. And there is persistent talk about a tax, or "jeziya" that could leveled on second-class, or non-Muslim, citizens.

A Hamas member of the Bethlehem City Council, Hassan El-Masalmeh, told the Wall Street Journal in late December: "We in Hamas plan to implement this tax someday. We say it openly, everyone is welcome to Palestine but only if they agree to live under our rules."

I don't want to sound unsympathetic to the suffering of my fellow Christians, but my initial reaction is "what did you expect?" Palestinian Christians have been siding with the terrorists against Israel for decades. Now that they have come to power (although in the form of Hamas rather than the PLO) it is a bit late to wonder if the bonds of "race" are going to prove stronger than differences of religion. Especially when one of the religions is Islam...

Nevertheless, the Christians have a hope that the Israelis do not. I am reminded of the letter to the church at Pergamum in Rev 2:12-17. The Palestinian Christians have been tempted by bonds of the flesh, but Christ will not forget those who dwell in the Devil's country, yet remain faithful to the death. Martyrdom may be all that they can hope for in the near future, but it is still a better fate than apostasy.

US State Department Pays the Jizya

The US State Department has never been particularly clueful when commenting on issues of freedom. Many suspect that diplomats in general prefer to deal with dictatorships rather than deal with all of the mess and uncertainty inherent in democracies. In that light, the following widely-reported remarks should come as no surprise:

These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims. We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable. We call for tolerance and respect for all communities for their religious beliefs and practices.

(For those who haven't been following the story, the cartoons in question were first published in a Danish newspaper and depicted Mohammad as a terrorist. This has sparked massive riots throughout the Muslim world which in turn prompted many European newspapers to reprint the images.)

On the face of it, there is nothing particularly wrong with the State Department's comments. I would agree that newspapers are often guilty of anti-religious bias and with the power of the press should come responsibility. But the trouble is what is not said. Nowhere does the State Department condemn the over-reaction of Muslims or the threats of violence which resulted.

As we have noted before, the Muslim faith is built on a vision of conquest and there is no room for the secular ideals of tolerance and fair-play which the State Department is promoting. This sort of appeasement is morally wrong and it won't even work.

(Via the lovely but not remotely safe-for-work Sonia-Belle.)

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has more, as does InstaPundit. Hmm. I notice that the AFP attributes these remarks to Justin Higgins while the Reuters story credited Kurtis Cooper. And CNN quotes Janelle Hironimus. But THEY ARE ALL SAYING THE SAME THING. Is this a coordinated media blitz?

UPDATE: Contrast the Muslim reaction with that of Americans to the portrayal of Osama Bin Laden as Christ:

The art show's producer Josh Wainwright, insisted he hadn't even made the Bin Laden connection. "Knowing what you know now would you have barred the painting from being part of your show?" I asked. "Absolutely not," he replied. Wainwright says he's a military veteran and despises Bin Laden, but he added, "I don't think it's anyone's job or vocation to limit the expression of artists."

UPDATE: One last thing. Here is the definition of Jizya, for those of you who were wondering.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh found a more detailed statement from Sean McCormack that stresses the free-speech issue. Still no condemnation of Muslim violence and a suggestion that "in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world". Not much improvement, in my opinion, over the abbreviated statements quoted in other sources.

Uniqueness of Christianity

NOTE: I am post-dating this so that it remains at the top of the screen. Please scroll down for newer posts. --Jack 01/20/06

A Conference sponsored by St. Luke’s Reformed Episcopal Church:

The Uniqueness of Christianity: What the Christian Faith Has Given to the World that no Other Religion Has or Can

Saturday, January 28, 2006 9:30 am – 2:00 pm

1702 Fairhaven Avenue, Santa Ana, CA

(714) 992-2835

With the cry "Jesus Christ conquer!" the early Church shook the ancient world to its very foundations as no other religion could. The spread of its unique doctrines and sacramental life meant liberation from idolatry and the transformation of a world marked by dehumanization and violence into a civilization modeled upon the self-giving love of Christ.

We invite you to join us as we rediscover the uniqueness of Christianity with our esteemed guest speaker, The Rt. Rev. Ray Sutton, PhD.

Admission is free. Seating is limited. Please let us know if you are planning to join us by calling (714) 992-2835.

UPDATE: I would like to point out that both Pastorius and Jollyblogger (neither of whose blogging shoes I am worthy to unlatch) have posts that are very germane to this topic.

Better an Honest Enemy...

...Than a False Friend.

There has been much commentary regarding the Hamas victory in the Palestinian election. While I do not in any way rejoice at the ascendency of such a vicious regime, I am a bit surprised by all the, er, surprise. Much of the tragedy of the Middle-East has resulted from the West's refusal to take the Palestinians seriously when they said they longed for the destruction of Israel. Much of this refusal stems from a (perhaps laudable) inability to think so ill of an entire people. And also from a (less laudable) instinct to take the part of the underdog, without inquiring as to why the dog in question has come to such a low estate.

Countless excuses have been made for the Palestinians continued use of terror, but now they have run out of excuses. With the full support of the international community, and in free and open elections they have declared that they really are defined by a hatred of Jews that overrides all other concerns, even those of self-interest.

In the near term, the most obvious result of this political analog to suicide bombing will be the withdrawal of international support and funding which the Palestinians have long depended on but rarely acknowledged. The long-term prospect is not so predictable, but much turns on whether, as a people, the Palestinians are capable of coming to their senses before they are obliterated in a futile war with the West.

UPDATE: Sorry, I stupidly saved this as a draft! Here is a development which might show that the Palestinians are indeed coming to their senses. Considering the source is Al-Jazeera, I am taking this with a grain of salt. But maybe, just maybe, this is a good sign. (Via Pastorius, who is even less optimistic.)

Christopher Lee Praises Johnny Depp

In an otherwise forgettable Showbiz! article detailing some of Christopher Lee's recent work and public appearances, the formidable actor is quoted making some remarkable comments:

The only young actor Lee did find praise for was Johnny Depp.

The pair have co-starred together in three films, most recently Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Lee said: "The number one actor in the world as far as I'm concerned is Johnny Depp. He's not afraid of a challenge, he's not afraid of anything."

Now, Christopher Lee has been in the businesses of both acting and scaring people for quite a long time, so it is not a small thing for him to praise another actor's talent and courage.

(On a side note, Lee impressed me a great deal in his remarks on playing the role of Saruman in the Lord of the Rings movies. Evidently he is a long-time fan of Tolkien and considered it an honor to take the part -- a marked contrast to the attitude most big-name actors exhibit.)

I happen to agree that Mr. Depp is probably the best actor of his generation. I can't remember seeing him in a role I didn't like. And, though I suspect I would disagree with his politics, he seems to have had the sense to avoid the usual Hollywood grandstanding.

Are Rainforests Poisoning the Atmoshphere?

Greenhouse gas methane produced by living plants:

German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change. The culprits are plants. They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.

Yet another reason not to sign the Kyoto protocol without much more scientific study.
(Via: Tammy Bruce)

Blood and Ballots

More evidence that the Arab world doesn't quite get the whole democracy/rule-of-law thing:

ZAGAZIG, Egypt -- Police barricaded polling stations and fired tear gas and rubber bullets yesterday to keep supporters of the banned Muslim Brotherhood from voting in the final day of parliamentary elections. At least eight persons were killed, including a 14-year-old boy.

Supporters of the banned Brotherhood fought back, hurling stones and Molotov cocktails and cornering security forces in some towns.

Hundreds have been wounded and more than 1,000 arrested, mainly supporters of the fundamentalist Brotherhood, which -- while banned -- has fielded candidates as independents.

[...]

Government supporters armed with machetes emerged from a police armored car in this Nile Delta city and attacked supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the government's main rival in the voting.

[...]

Independent monitors and human rights groups have reported numerous irregularities, including busing of state employees to polling stations, tampering with ballot boxes and blockading of polling stations.

I'm no fan of the Muslim Brotherhood, but it's hard to find any good guys to root for here. One rule of thumb: "machetes" and "voting" just don't belong in the same sentence.

UPDATE: Michael J. Totten visits Big Pharaoh in Egypt and provides some sobering thoughts along the same lines. There plenty to read but here are my two favorite points:

"You’re not worried about the secret police?"
"Not any more," he said. "It is a real change from last year. Last year there was no way. But it’s better now, more open. Do you know why?"
"No," I said. "Tell me."
"Because of pressure from George W. Bush."
That is the only piece of good news I have to report from Egypt.

And, furhter down:

"At some point," I said, "if you want to live in a democracy you’re going to have to accept the fact that conservative religious political parties exist. You may never like them, but they won’t always be a terrorist threat. Democracy has mellowed out the Islamists in Turkey, for example."
"Yes," he said. "But Turkey has a secular constitution. They want to enter the EU, so the Islamists are forced to play by the rules of the game. They cannot step on the freedoms that the Turkish people take for granted. The Egyptian people, though, since the time of the Pharaohs, have been a flock. They follow the shepherd."
"My biggest fear," he continued, "is that if the Muslim Brotherhood rules Egypt we will get Islamism-lite, that they won’t be quite bad enough that people will revolt against them. Take bars, for example. Most Egyptians don’t drink, so they won’t mind if alcohol is illegal. The same goes for banning books. Most Egyptians don’t read. So why should they care if books are banned? Most women wear a veil or a headscarf already, so if it becomes the law hardly anyone will resist."

Red Diamonds and Yellow Stars

I mentioned here and here the insanity about trying to remove the Red Cross symbol from aid packages in Muslim countries due to the danger of anti-Christian terrorist attacks. Now we have an anti-Semitic angle from the Geneva Convention:

A diamond-shaped red crystal on a white background is to join the Red Cross and the Red Crescent as an emblem for ambulances and relief workers.
Geneva Convention member states voted by a two-thirds majority for the symbol, ending a decades-old row and opens the way for Israel to join.

Israel had been denied entry because its Red Shield was not approved.

There is more background here. Frankly I don't see any valid reason for the use of the Red Crescent, since the original symbol of the cross comes from the Swiss flag, not the religious symbol. But even acknowledging that the organization was deeply influenced by its founders religious faith, there is no reason to exclude the Star of David, if the Crescent is to be included. And the idea that the new symbol "is regarded as being free from religious, national or cultural connotations" is incoherent when you consider the national and religious significance of the other two symbols.

I suppose from a practical perspective the inclusion of Israel is a step in the right direction, even under such odious terms. But I can't help thinking that when the Nazis wanted to degrade the Jews, they made them wear little yellow stars. Ironically, that would have offended modern-day anti-Semites, but for all the wrong reasons.

(Via Tammy Bruce and CUANAS)

Church Beats State in Hurricane Relief

My instinct in this post that the proper source of aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina was the church not the government was evidently correct:

Louisiana residents gave churches higher marks than government agencies in responding to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and most prefer that the federal government control rebuilding funds rather than local officials, according to a Louisiana State University study.

On a scale of one (not effective) to 10 (very effective), residents gave churches the highest mark of 8.1, and New Orleans city agencies and state agencies received the lowest rating of 4.6.

Sadly, the same residents also draw the wrong lesson about federalism:

The majority of Louisianans, 54 percent, said the federal government should pick up the tab for rebuilding, and a 40 percent plurality said they trusted the federal government to have primary control over how funds are spent.

Only 23 percent said local governments should control the purse strings, and 27 percent favored the state as the watchdog.

This probably reflects the legendary corruption of Louisiana politicians and is probably an accurate reflection of the situation there. But it is unfortunate that people seem incapable of seeing the desirability of smaller government, even in the same breath that they recognize that government does not handle social and charitable issues well.

I have said this before, of course, but it bears repeating: if people paid less money in taxes, there would be more available for charitable giving. Many argue that disaster relief requires the efficiency of centralized planning, but this experience with Katrina should prove the flaw in that argument. Should, but probably won't, alas.

Keep Up Pressure on Sudan

iAbolish reports that the Bush administration has upgraded Sudan's status to Tier II on the Trafficking in Persons report:

In a recent decision, President Bush and the State Department elevated Sudan’s status on the Trafficking in Persons Report from Tier III (the lowest possible ranking), to Tier II. Despite continued government support and orchestration of slave raids, Sudan now shares the ranking with countries such as Switzerland, Chile, Hungary, and Greece.

Although the State Department justifies this decision by citing “significant efforts” on the part of the Sudanese government to comply with United States anti-trafficking legislation, human rights activists challenge this determination, claiming that the meager proof offered by the State Department does not amount to “significant efforts.”

They have an on-line petition here where interested parties can sign the following letter to Secretary Rice:

Dear Madam Secretary,

I write regarding Presidential Determination, No. 2005-37, dated September 21, 2005, to elevate Sudan's slavery status from Tier III to Tier II of the Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report.

Although I greatly appreciate the personal attention you devote to ending the genocide in Sudan and admire the courage you demonstrated while visiting dangerous camps in Darfur, I am very concerned about the recent decision to elevate Sudan's status to Tier II of the TIP Report, the same level as Switzerland, Finland, Israel, Greece, Hungary and Chile.

The Memorandum of Justification accompanying the Presidential Determination states:

"The Government of Sudan does not yet fully comply with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but is making significant efforts to bring itself into compliance. This is the standard for placement in Tier II of the State Department's Trafficking in Persons Report. The Secretary of State has placed Sudan on the Special Watch List because the determination that the Government of Sudan is making significant efforts is based on commitments by the country to take additional steps over the next year."

This decision is fundamentally flawed. The available evidence from the UN points to the Government of Sudan's continuing involvement in crimes against humanity, including "abductions and sexual slavery." In conclusion, I recommend the immediate reversal of the flawed decision.

The establishment of a new coalition government in Khartoum presents fresh opportunities for the eradication of slavery. We therefore urge you to liase with Sudan's new First Vice-President and regional President of Southern Sudan, Salva Kiir - whose own relatives and community number among the victims of slavery - to find a credible approach to terminating, for all time, the horrors of state-sponsored slavery in Sudan.

I stand behind you, Madam Secretary, as you work to bring peace to Sudan. But I feel obliged to remind you that lasting peace can only be based on truth and justice. Peace in Sudan will never be secure as long as the interests of the slaves and other victims of terror are sacrificed for certain foreign policy objectives, such as preserving the unity of the Islamist-dominated Sudanese state and gaining the cooperation of that officially designated "terrorist" state as a partner in counter-terrorism.

Nigeria! Nigeria! Nigeria!

This is so cool:

In an historic moment, as part of the realignment of global Anglicanism, on November 12, 2005 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola, Primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), the Most Rev. Leonard W. Riches, Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church, and the Most Rev. Walter H. Grundorf, Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Province of America, entered on behalf of their three Churches a Covenant Union of Anglican Churches in Concordat.

OK, that probably doesn't sound so impressive to those of you who haven't been following the shake-up in the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA). What it means, in simple terms, is that the biggest communion of Anglicans on the planet (Nigeria), with the most kick-ass Archbishop (Peter Akinola), has formally recognized my denomination (REC) and seriously dissed ECUSA. The REC has long been considered a sort of poor step-sister to ECUSA because we are smaller and evangelical, whereas they are big and apostate. This is equivalent to Isaac choosing Jacob over Esau, or Israel choosing Ephraim over Manasseh. It is like the English ousting James II and restoring the protestants William and Mary.

It is especially a kick in the pants for ECUSA since their former poster-boy, John Shelby Spong, once famously dismissed the African bishops as having "moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity." Well, now those same bishops are joining with the REC to evangelize the apostate West: "The three Churches have united specifically for joint mission in North America."

Woo-fricken-hoo!

I apologize for the unwonted exuberance of this post, but I have been praying for this for a very long time.

(Note: I don't mean to leave the Anglican Province in America out of the mix. The REC and the APA are in full communion. We are on the road to an actual merger but there are some minor issues, such as Mariology, that are acting as speed-bumps. Nothing serious, but worth taking time over. So, when I say "my denomination", I assume that will eventually include the APA, as well.)

Update: The link to the quoted article above goes to the REC main web site. There evidently isn't a way to link to the article itself, so it may eventually become outdated.

Comments Enabled

Against my better judgment, I have finally decided to break down and enable comments on this blog. My original objections were that comments take away from the focus of a blog and that the top bloggers (such as Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit and the Volokh Conspiracy) did not have comments. But I have found that recently, I spend more time commenting on other blogs than blogging here, so my first argument falls somewhat flat. And I have pretty much stopped reading Sullivan, and Volokh has been enabling comments for some time now, so the second argument is much shakier than it used to be. So starting now, I will be enabling comments until further notice.

I will update this post with my comment/email policy as soon as I have time to think about it some more. But let me say, by way of guidelines, that I want thoughtful comments along the lines of those at Althouse or the Volokh Conspiracy. I don't want the sort on Little Green Footballs. If you can't tell the difference, you probably shouldn't be commenting.

Pastorius on ID

My friend Pastorius cites this story about the Vatican denying that ID is science. I would have thought that the whole Galileo episode would have taught the Vatican to stay out of questions of what is and isn't science, but apparently they feel the need to make up for the former error by falling off the other side of the horse.

Regardless, Pastorius comments:

In science, it doesn't much matter if God created the universe or not. Scientists still have to use the scientific method to figure out how things work. If, instead, a scientist looks at an organic process, and simply says, "It works that way, because God created it," then that's the end of science.

My responses are on his comments section, but I thought I should post the latter one here as well, since he is asking for sources showing that ID really does science:

Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and the various books by William Dembski (especially The Design Revolution) are good places to start. These are popular description of ID, though, so they qualify more as meta-science rather than actual science (in the same way that Origin of the Species or The Blind Watchmaker are not science but meta-science.)

For articles, I would recommend this analysis of The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design. It is rather long and some of the points are more philosophical than scientific, but the gist is that ID and Darwinism use essentially the same methodology. I am comfortable with the charge that this doesn't prove that ID is scientific, (they might both be unscientific), but at least it is relevant to the question of whether ID should be taught in schools.

Here is a list of peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject of ID. Note that not all of the articles mentioned are by members of the ID movement. Unfortunately, the actual articles are not linked to, just the summaries, but you can see by the description that they are the standard sort of thing you find in scientific analysis.

This sort of begs the question at hand since it basically answers the question, "What is science?" by stating, "Science is the stuff that scientists do." This has a disturbingly circular ring to it as well as invoking the spectre of an appeal to authority that Galileo would no doubt find humorous. Nevertheless this does seem to be only definitive way to answer the question. Any attempt to define science rigorously will run into the problem of who is doing the defining, which is pretty much at the center of the ID debate.

Shi'ite Torture Cell in Baghdad

This is disturbing:

U.S. and Iraqi forces raided a secret Iraqi detention bunker run by the Ministry of Interior in central Baghdad and freed 173 Sunni prisoners who had been tortured with electric shocks and drills, Iraqi and U.S. officials said yesterday.

The Ministry of Interior in the Shi'ite-led government has been repeatedly accused of allowing extrajudicial detentions and abuses, including operation of anti-Sunni hit squads.

A Baghdad police official said officers from the Shi'ite-led Badr Brigade, which answers to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) political party, were manning the bunker when the U.S. and Iraqi forces arrived.

[...]


In Washington, State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli called for those responsible to be held accountable.

"We don't practice torture, and we don't believe that others should practice torture," he said. "So when there are cases of people being accused of torture, we take that seriously."

[...]

The FBI and U.S. Department of Justice, together with the U.S. Embassy and multinational forces in Iraq, have offered to assist in the investigation.

The main reason I think the war in Iraq was just -- the deposition of Hussein and his torture state -- is going to fall apart if the Shi'ites we put in power start behaving in the same despicable manner. I am glad to see that the State Department is denouncing this in no uncertain terms and that the FBI an JD are on the case. But the important thing will be how this plays in Iraq and whether or not there is sufficient follow-through. If this isn't stopped immediately, we lose.

UPDATE: Disturbingly, this news is two days old and I don't see much buzz about this. Several MSM sources (including Drudge) have carried the story but not with any great prominence and none of the major blogs have so much as mentioned it. IraqTheModel is the only one I can find who has anything to say about this. Even Belgravia Dispatch and Andrew Sullivan, who are quick to point out the questionable activities of the CIA have not mentioned this as far as I can tell.
Here is the Washington Times noting the pushback from the Iraqi Interior Minister. Also, note the possible Iran connection.

The Anchoress Spanks Republican Leaders

In a post titled Attention GOP Leadership the Anchoress makes some points that I have been stewing about for weeks:

The world is tilting, and you useless, ineffectual, dithering moneysuckers seem increasingly to be empty suits, given shape and movement not by ideas and a willingness to serve the electorate, but by wispy tufts of ambitious smoke. You seem directed toward nothing more than keeping your almighty Senate or House seat in your name. You give away your power, you give away your advantages in committee, you leave in place utterly feckless people like Arlen Specter and then, when you finally seem like you are on the cusp of doing something productive and right, like investigating the CIA or okaying drilling in a bare, muddly, uninhabitable tundra, you fall into a faint and go slinking back to your states and districts to gladhand and pump for money and then gladhand some more.

This is harsh rhetoric, but it perfectly captures the frustration that many principled conservatives feel with our unprincipled representatives. More, their lack of principle is reflecting badly on us -- unfairly, since politicians are rarely as interested in principle as their intellectual defenders, but inevitably.

In an update, the Anchoress claims that this disaffection from the GOP is different from criticisms of the Harriet Miers nomination. But I think she was wrong to object to the treatment of Miers, "due to her not being permitted her hearing". Miers and Bush were not owed any such hearing. People voicing their opiinion is precisely the data that Senators should have taken into account in making their decision whether or not to confirm, and the fact that the opinions expressed caused Bush to withdraw the nomination is a perfectly acceptable outcome.

Robertson on Intelligent Design

Tammy Bruce rightly excoriates this bit of idiocy from Pat Robertson:

Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them on Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

One of the irritating things about this is that, by associating Intelligent Design with Christianity (if that is what you call the worldly and mendacious religion that he practices), Robertson is actually feeding the very slander that critics of ID have so successfully achieved. Michael Behe and William Dembski have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that what they do is legitimate science and has no basis in any religion, Christian or otherwise. Then along comes Robertson and pisses it all away by calling down the wrath of God.

He is even wrong from a theological point of view. Here is his actual quote:

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

Even assuming that Robertson had the authority to speak on God's behalf (which I categorically deny), this is just not a biblical view of God's judgment. Telling people not to turn to God has no precedent in even the harshest prophets of the Old Testament.

It is true that God will sometimes respond to extreme unfaithfulness with and implacable justice which he declares in advance will not be remitted. I am currently teaching a study on the book of the prophet Hosea who had the thankless task of telling the Northern kingdom of Israel that their doom was fixed. Chapter 1 contains one of the two or three scariest passages in the entire bible: "Call her name Lo-Ruhamah, for I will no longer have mercy on the house of Israel, but I will utterly take them away." [Hos 1:6] Yet, in several times throughout the book, Hosea is careful to say that, after the judgment has occurred and the people are repentant "I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely, for My anger has turned away from him." [Hos 14:4] (If you want a more complete discussion of this book, you will have to show up at St. Luke's. :)

Tammy comments:

Just as we demand that "modern" Muslims condemn the extremists in their midst, good Christians really ought to send Robertson packing. This is just ridiculous and should embarrass every decent person of faith out there. Absolutely outrageous.

I agree. One minor quibble with Tammy's post, however. Many conservative Christians do deplore Robertson and Falwell and do so as publicly as we are able. However, our objections do not make the front pages -- much less the careful, thoughtful and constructive contributions we make in our churches and daily lives. I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but I have become convinced that Robertson and his ilk are useful to the MSM precisely because they show Christianity in a bad light. Sending him packing would be a dream come true for many of us, but is not a very realistic option in the current environment.

Update: Incidentally, here is what Michael Behe has to say about the court case (mentioned in the article):

As far as the "ordeal" goes, despite what the LA Times article makes it seem, it was actually all rather exhilirating. I rather enjoyed myself on the witness stand, because I got to explain in very great detail the argument for intelligent design, and the other side had to sit there and listen.

The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things.

From what I read from Casey's blog about Scott Minnich's testimony, he seemed to have the same experience. I haven't the foggiest idea how the Judge will rule, but I think we got to show a lot of people that ID is a very serious idea.

Support Free Speech: Kill HR 4194

RedState and DailyKos have co-authored a letter to congress urging the defeat of HR 4194 which has been offered as an alternative to the Online Freedom of Speech Act (H.R. 1606):

As bloggers from the right and left, we don't often agree on much. But when it comes to free speech online, we couldn't agree more.

[...]

For those members committed to extending the BCRA rules and regulations to the Internet, it would be preferable to pass no bill at all rather than H.R. 4194, which would only chill free speech and technological growth, and instead wait for the Federal Election Commission to complete its current rulemaking process.

Better still would be to pass H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act. H.R. 1606 would preserve the status quo which governed the 2004 election cycle, during which none of the fears now trumpeted by H.R. 4194's supporters came to pass.

[...]

In sum, the Internet now fulfills through technology what the rest of campaign finance reform attempts via law - and this occurred under the legal regime which H.R. 1606 seeks to codify. We urge you to proceed cautiously, and steer clear of additional restrictions like H.R. 4194 until real corruption becomes evident.

Personally, I would rather repeal the entire McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law and (all similar laws) and simply let people decide for themselves what to think. I don't believe money really has such an impact on elections, even in traditional media, as we are generally led to believe.

But since such a repeal is probably not politically possible in the near future, at least we should prevent Congress from extending the restrictions on free speech to the one internet.

(Cross posted on Love America First)

Alito on Casey

Most commentators have rightly recognized that the battle for the confirmation of Samuel Alito will center on his dissent in Planned Parenthood v Casey. Tammy Bruce, who is mildly supportive of the nomination with some reservations, has this to say:

Let me say immediately I was disappointed he did not pick a woman. I realize many of you think it makes no difference, but I beg to differ. All people in important positions also serve as role models. If the president were to have picked a woman, a conservative woman of course, it would have sent an additional message that women can think in a variety of different ways. That is one reason why the Dems become especially apoplectic when it comes to women who dare to be different. It is the reason why Barbara Boxer treated Secretary Rice so badly during her confirmation hearing. They can not stand women who challenge the Left's status quo, who dare to leave their plantation.

[...]

And when it comes to being conservative, there is nothing conservative about ruling in a manner that says government has a right to control communications between spouses. I think all of you would certainly agree with that. And yet consider this when it came to his dissent in Planned Parenthood Vs. Casey:

In the early 1990s, Alito was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.

While many of you probably would, of course, personally prefer that a woman tell her husband what she's doing, especially if she's getting an abortion, legislating what a wife or husband should tell each other is the opposite of a conservative view of government. Obviously, he's pro-life, and that's fine. But that's a religious position, not an authentically conservative 'political' position. The two are very different.

At any rate, the president is in for a fight, and Alito is a smart man and a good jurist in general. His action in Casey indicates that he thinks government has a right to reach into our lives. That is troubling when it comes to a decision like Kelo and our private property rights.

Harry Reid isn't happy, so that's one excellent sign that Alito is overall a good choice. We shall see.

Here is my response, which I also posted as a comment on Tammy's blog:

I am also mildly disappointed that a conservative woman was not nominated, not for affirmative action-type reasons but for the simple political calculation that it would improve the image of the Republican Party among those who care about such things. Also it would be a huge thumb in the eye of the opposition.

But I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Alito's role in PP v Casey. His dissent was perfectly justifiable on conservative principles, in both a substantive and legal sense.

Substantively, it has always been the case that government has some role in defining the behavior of married couples. Consider the case of jointly buying a house. I could not legally sell my house without my wife's consent. There are probably other restrictions as well that I am not aware of. Note, incidentally, that this is quite apart from any moral or religious considerations. Marriage is, among other things, a public and legal relationship, which the government has an interest in regulating. While you rightly suggest that governmental interference should be minimal -- and we can agree to disagree on what the limits of that interference should be -- it is by no means contrary to conservative principle that there might be some.

Unfortunately, I am not able to find the original 3rd Circuit decision with Alito's dissent, but he is quoted in the SCOTUS case as saying "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems - such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition - that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." This suggests that he was using a "rational basis" test for the constitutionality of the legislation. What this means is that the court defers to the legislature if it can find any legitimate end that the law could be pursuing, as opposed to strict scrutiny which puts more burden of proof on the government in cases where an enumerated constitutional right is at issue. As Rehnquist points out in his dissent (footnote 2), the law made several exceptions to the notification requirement, thus avoiding the imposition of an "undue burden" on the woman, thus avoiding the need for strict scrutiny. I happen to disagree with this taxonomy of scrutiny, but it is established doctrine handed down from prior Supreme Court decisions, so using it qualifies as "conservative" in the judicial sense.

I neglected to mention it above, but for the sake of clarity let me explain the reference to affirmative action. I think that the first issue that should be considered is always merit. But, once you have a pool of equally qualified people, it is perfectly legitimate to promote on the basis of such things as race or sex, especially when you are trying to maintain a certain public image. This isn't mandatory, of course, but it makes sense from a political perspective.

UPDATE: Commenter Joe at ConfirmThem.com has posted the text of Judge Alito's dissent in PP v Casey. It pretty much confirms my guesses above, viz. that his dissent was based on a "rational basis" test and that no "undue burden" was established (which would have required a higher standard of scrutiny). Fascinatingly, he bases his dissent on prior opinions of ... Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom he is slated to replace.