Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

RANDALL BALMER'S ACCUSATION THAT EVANGELICALS SUPPORT TORTURE

Once again, I note that Mark D. Tooley has to set the record straight concerning false allegations leveled against evangelicals.  Two days ago I referenced Tooley's article about left wing evangelicals, and now today Tooley responds to Randall Balmer's much-publicized accusation that evangelicals favor torture.   After denying Balmer's claims, Tooley concludes his response with these words:

The Balmer thesis about evangelical support for torture is part of a larger, more common thesis on the Left. According to this lore, conservative religous activists in the U.S. are mindless robots of the Bush Administration and unquestioning supporters of U.S. imperialism. They are, wittingly or unwittingly, the agents of evil.

 

But recent studies by Baylor University and the Pew Research Center show that conservative evangelicals in the U.S. do in fact have the mental competence to differentiate among their faith, their nation, and their politics. The real sin of conservative evangelicals, in the eyes of the secular and Religous Left, is that they do not accept the Left's thesis that the U.S. is the primary architect of terror and aggression in the world today.

Click here to read the whole thing.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON REVIEWS TWO BOOKS ON THE FALL OF ROME

Victor Davis Hanson reviews Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians and  Bryan Ward-Perkins' The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization.

Hanson's concluding two paragraphs:

So there we have it: two gifted historians, through quite different methodologies, come to surprisingly similar conclusions that the Western empire fell to foreign aggression from barbarian tribes in the late fifth century. To Ward-Perkins this was all a horror and a lesson for Western civilization today to remain vigilant. But to Heather, the fall was a result of unbridled Western “aggression” and thus something that was ultimately “pleasing.”

WOULD DEMOCRATS BRING FRESH FACES TO WASHINGTON?

Tim Graham talks about a potential Democratic victory in the House:

Has anyone considered how the Democrats can present themselves as a vote for "change" when you consider the term-unlimited people that will chair the committees, as AP reviews it? John Dingell: first elected December of 1955.  That's almost pre-rock-and-roll.  John Conyers: first elected 1964.  Charles Rangel? 1970. Henry Waxman? 1974.  George Miller? 1974.  Fresh faces, anyone?

REDEEMING REASON

Internet browsing turned up a fascinating website, Redeeming Reason.  It presents itself as "Intentional Christian Scholars in conversation with the Secular Mindset Today". 

A conference was held Nov. 3- 5, 2005  at the University of Chicago.  Speakers included Dallas Willard, Albert Alschuler, Philip Gleason, Susan Emmerich, Cornelius Plantinga, PaulGriffiths, Charles Emmerich, George Marsden, and Graham Walker    Best of all, the talks are available online here.   

From the website:  "One of our goals in this conference is to provide resources to students, academics and anyone interested in engaging the difficulties of reason, logic and the secular mindset in the face of Christianity." 

The 2006 conference will be held Nov. 9-11th.  Speakers include  Henry Schaeffer III, Alvin Plantinga, Ian Hutchinson, Ard Louis , Don York , Pat Reiff , John Suppe, Pattle Pun , Cal DeWitt , Alan Padgett

THE UNITED NATIONS' HUMANITARIAN FAILURES

Michelle Malkin argues against Anglina Jolie's devotion to the United Nations, saying:

In the land of make-believe, Jolie's call to pour more tax dollars into the U.N. refugee agency's coffers might well help to stem the refugee tide. But in the real world, it will only perpetuate exploitation. The well-read actress ought to read up on the Kenyan bribery scandal that has plagued the U.N. refugee agency, UNHCR.

You want to talk about scandal? For years, U.N. staff members in Nairobi shook down African refugees seeking resettlement in North America, Europe and Australia while the U.N. looked the other way. The extortion racket charged up to $5,000 a head for resettlement rights. Belated investigations found that the scandal wasn't the result of a few rogue workers-but of negligent management that created a ripe atmosphere for abuse.

THE BLOGS RUSH LIMBAUGH READS REGULARLY

I'm not a person who listens to Rush Limbaugh very often.  It's not that I don't like him.  I do.  But I don't listen to the radio much at all.  Once or twice a week, though, I find myself in the car driving to the post office at a time when Rush Limbaugh is on the radio.   In the 10 minutes or so I am in the car, I appreciate hearing what he's talking about.  Today I found it interesting to learn what blogs he reads on a daily basis.  Here's what he says (from yesterday's radio transcript):

I'm going to tell you the blog postings that I regularly read in my RSS reader. I've communicated with many of the people who run them. They're fabulous people, starting with National Review Online, then Hugh Hewitt and his Townhall blog, Captain Ed, Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters. The three lawyers at Power Line. These are resources that I have added to everything else that I use for show prep which makes show prep an ongoing, never ending thing. Red State is another site.(I hope I don't forget anybody.) Little Green Footballs.  I don't want to leave any out. A.J. Strata, Strata-Sphere. I don't want to leave anybody out here.  The American Spectator.  You here me talking about these. I'm referring to two days' worth of posts on this one site.

.  .  .  .  I knew I was going to do it.  I left out some blogger names that I routinely read.  One of them is Michelle Malkin, and she's just fabulous and extremely valuable.  The American Thinker, which I cite and quote on this program constantly, and Debbie Schlussel-- and I'm sure there are more. Not all of them are on my RSS reader. Some of them I have to go look for.   (HT: Kathryn Lopez)

EVANGELICALS AND OTHERS ON THE RELIGIOUS LEFT

Mark D. Tooley continues to do an excellent job keeping tabs on the strategies and fulminations of the religious left -- including self-proclaimed evangelicals such as Tony Campolo, Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, Brian McClaren, and others.  They have started "Red Letter Christians" which espouses political concerns of the left.  Tooley writes:

Red Letter Christians, like much of the Religious Left, want to avoid or deny traditional religious teachings about sexual mores and human life. Instead, they claim that God has endorsed very specific policy proposals about expanding the Food Stamp program, increasing the Minimum Wage, paying more homage to the United Nations, shutting down the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo, accepting apocalyptic claims about global warming and embracing the consequent increased regulation of the private economy, opposing nearly all U.S. military action, and faulting the U.S. and the West for nearly all global poverty, while defining foreign aid as a reparation that is never high enough, whether that aid is actually effective in reducing human suffering or not.

In short, Red Letter Christians want to demote the issues to which the Bible speaks directly in favor of other issues dear to the secular Left that rely on a grossly expansionist interpretation of the Bible. For the Red Letter crowd, Jesus’ concern about the poor means a larger federal welfare state. The Bible’s story of God’s creation of the earth must mean that the U.S. has to endorse the Kyoto Accord. Messianic prophecies about world peace are interpreted to demand disarmament and abrogation of U.S. sovereignty.

More tracking of the liberal left can be found at the Institute on Religion and Democracy website.

JEFF JACOBY SURVEYS THE CENSORING OF IDEAS IN THE U.S. TODAY

After citing many contemporary examples of intimidation and attempted censorship, Jeff Jacoby concludes his article saying,

The silencers are at work in the marketplace of ideas, using hook or crook to smother opinions they dislike. The lust to censor is as powerful as ever. If only liberty's defenders were equally vigilant.   (HT: Stanley Kurtz)

ADAM SMITH, CLASSICAL ECONOMICS, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF

I found Stanley Kurtz's piece in National Review Online stimulating and helpful.  He writes:

Adam Smith was an extraordinary fellow.  More than the founding theorist of market capitalism, Smith was a profound student of moral psychology.  Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments easily matches Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in richness and depth.  I was reminded of this on learning that The Templeton Foundation and the journal In Character had awarded a prize to the authors of an Op Ed entitled, "Disaster Relief: What Would Adam Smith Do?"

The authors, Jonathan B. Wright and Douglas A. Hicks, use Smith's treatment of an imaginary Chinese earthquake in Theory of Moral Sentiments to reflect on the Asian tsunami.  Their underlying point is that economic and political flourishing rest upon civic virtue–a fact well understood by Smith (in contrast to the stereotype of Smith as a radically “laissez faire” thinker).  For an accessible and rounded treatment of Adam Smith, incorporating his Theory of Moral Sentiments and his concerns with character and virtue, see Jerry Z. Muller’s Adam Smith: In His Time and Ours. But of course, best of all is to dive into the Theory of Moral Sentiments.

SERMONS ON THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM NOTED O.T. SCHOLAR, DR. WALTER KAISER

I've written before of Prof. Gordon Fee's online lectures on Galatians.  Since then I've learned that Dr. Walter Kaiser, well-known evangelical Old Testament scholar [booklist here] and former President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, has a number of seminary chapel messages available online.  They are all the more valuable for being Biblical studies of such books as Daniel, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Nehemiah, Exodus, Matthew, and Hebrews.  Other sermons of his are online also.

The Gospel of Judas: An Evaluation and Critique

Rick E. Watts, Associate Professor of New Testament Studies at Regent College, Vancouver, BC offers an evaluation and critique of The Gospel of Judas.

DAVID HOROWITZ CONSTANTLY ATTACKED AND SMEARED

Conservative writer David Horowitz is constantly slandered.  Here's his response:

I have put up a new archive called Replies to (Leftwing) Critics for sheer self-preservation so that readers can have ready access to my responses to the relentless web-wide attacks on me by the political left, whose purpose is not to engage an intellectual argument but to eliminate me from any debate all together. These attacks are not unique to me but are the way the left normally deals with its opponents. A roster of its targets can be found on leftwing smear sites like Media Matters and RightWingWatch. Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin have written whole books describing them (Slander  and Unhinged). The purpose of the attacks is character assassination. Their aim is to smear conservative figures like myself as morally indecent (racist, sexist, homophobic, dishonest) by misrepresenting  what we have written and said, by converting political differences into differences about facts, and by frontal assaults on our credibility with the implication that no one should listen to what we have to say. There are so many of these attacks and their falsehoods are reproduced so many times that I have only been able to answer a small fraction. Nonetheless, because they are so repetitious in their content and unimaginative in their format a good idea of the scope and nature of these attacks can be gleaned from this archive. I have also designed it as a handy reference for anyone who has the unpleasant task of having to engage with their authors.

ON THE SUBJECT OF THEOCONS...

Here's an historically interesting little quote:

“There is a mighty task before us and it welds us together.   It is to make the United States a mighty Christian Nation, and to Christianize the world.” 

— Woodrow Wilson.

(HT: Jonah Goldberg)

I posted the above and then realized that the subject of an alleged theocratic threat has achieved hysteria-like levels in certain contemporary circles.  Rich Lowry over at National Review Online  has an excellent article surveying the facts and calming the fears.    He mentions, but doesn't link to, Ross Douthat in First Things, "Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy" and Peter Steinfels in the American Prospect, "Be Not Afraid".

DISMAYING: THE IGNORANCE OF OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES

Dean Barnett isn't impressed by the insights or even the studiousness of our intelligence services.  It's been his observation that "Anything that happened in the Islamic world was by definition a reaction to something America or the West did. They had no understanding of our enemy and, more damningly, zero comprehension that they had to get one. Fast."

He writes further:

IN TODAY’S NEW YORK TIMES of all places, my well-founded skepticism has been validated. Jeff Stein, the national security editor at Congressional Quarterly, writes how he’s made a habit in recent years of concluding interviews with government officials by asking them if they know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. The results have been uniformly dismaying if not surprising. A sample:

A few weeks ago, I took the F.B.I.’s temperature again. At the end of a long interview, I asked Willie Hulon, chief of the bureau’s new national security branch, whether he thought that it was important for a man in his position to know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. “Yes, sure, it’s right to know the difference,” he said. “It’s important to know who your targets are.”

That was a big advance over 2005. So next I asked him if he could tell me the difference. He was flummoxed. “The basics goes back to their beliefs and who they were following,” he said. “And the conflicts between the Sunnis and the Shia and the difference between who they were following.”

O.K., I asked, trying to help, what about today? Which one is Iran — Sunni or Shiite? He thought for a second. “Iran and Hezbollah,” I prompted. “Which are they?”

He took a stab: “Sunni.”

Wrong.

POLITICAL SPEECHES: USING CODE LANGUAGE? OR JUST INNOCENT LITERARY ALLUSIONS?

What should one make of particular words in political speeches that some recognize and others don't?  Are they code words for an ingroup, or are they innocent, ordinary literary allusions  which one either recognizes or does not?  Jonah Goldberg offers an interesting post on this question: 

Joe Knippenberg points out this interesting bit from a Pew forum with Mike Gerson [former speechwriter for George W. Bush]:

"A fourth category are literary allusions to hymns and scripture. In our first inaugural, we had "when we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side;" or "there is power, wonder-working power in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people" in the State of the Union.

I've actually had, in the past, reporters call me up on a variety of speeches and ask me where are the code words. I try to explain that they're not code words; they're literary references understood by millions of Americans. They're not code words; they're our culture. It's not a code word when I put a reference to T.S. Eliot's Choruses From the Rock in our Whitehall speech; it's a literary reference. And just because some don't get it doesn't mean it's a plot or a secret. (Laughter.)

RECENT TV DEBATE ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN VS. EVOLUTION

Carol Ionone watched Ben Wattenburg's PBS's Think Tank program on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution   (Oct. 12, 2006) and wrote the following.

Ben Wattenberg's "Think Tank"  had on Stephen Meyer from the Discovery Institute and Darwinian Michael Ruse from Florida State University to discuss Intelligent Design. Ruse kept denying that ID was science, calling it religion or philosophy instead. We are familiar with this refrain. But he offered no specifics. I hold no brief for ID, but why isn’t it scientific to say, as IDers do, that certain biological mechanisms are irreducibly complex (i.e., inexplicable by random mutation and natural selection)? Why aren't the probability models that show that the components of life would take a trillion times the age of the earth to evolve by chance, why aren't they science? Well, the discussion continues next week, so perhaps it will get more specific. But one important thing, Meyer said that IDers are not asking that ID be taught whole in science classes (that was an unfortunate, not to say disastrous, misstep on the part of the Dover, Pennsylvania school board). Meyer said the idea is that Darwin be taught along with the criticisms of Darwin. That sounds reasonable. What's wrong with that? For example, first tell students that Darwin hypothesized that it all comes from chance, and then give them some of the models showing the probability of certain life substances evolving by chance. (And then, for fun, tell them to read Ann Coulter's hilarious section on evolution in "Godless.") 

Once again, the full transcript is here.

On an earlier post  I referred to  a 2005 video featuring Dr. Loren Haarsma speaking on Is Intelligent Design "Scientific"?   His lecture handout has also been made available. Haarsma distinguishes and comments on three aspects of Intelligent Design -- the scientific, the philosophical and the religious.  Helpful.

In a still earlier post, I wrote the following:

On the current debate concerning Intelligent Design, a sure-footed guide can be found in Nancy Pearcey.   Her book Total Truth, has a major section laying out the case for Intelligent Design.   She has stayed on top of the discussion and has written an article that takes account of the criticisms leveled by people such as George Will, Charles Krauthammer and others.   In this article she offers five reasons why intelligent design will win in the end.  Also worth checking out is her article, "Christianity Is a Science-Starter, Not a Science-Stopper".   She previously wrote one of the clearest introductions to science I have ever read, The Soul of Science plus she co-wrote with Chuck Colson How Now Shall We Live?  She and her husband have an important website, The Pearcey Report,  which gathers news and offers commentary.   

"60 Minutes," David Kuo, and "Faith-Based Initiatives"

David Kuo's appearance on "60 Minutes" last Sunday has stirred a good bit of interest and controversy.   "60 Minutes" introduced Kuo with these words:

David Kuo is an evangelical Christian and card-carrying member of the religious right, who got a job in the White House in the president’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He thought it was a dream-come-true: a chance to work for a president whose vision about compassionate conservatism would be matched with sweeping legislation to help the poor.

But Kuo says the so-called compassion agenda has fallen short of its promise and he blames President Bush for that in his new book.

As correspondent Lesley Stahl reports, he also says the White House was a place that cynically used religion for political ends and that White House aides ridiculed the very Christian leaders who helped bring Mr. Bush to office.

In his book, Kuo wrote that White House staffers would roll their eyes at evangelicals, calling them "nuts" and "goofy."

Asked if that was really the attitude, Kuo tells Stahl, "Oh, absolutely. You name the important Christian leader and I have heard them mocked by serious people in serious places."

To those deeply upset by these "revelations," Jonah Goldberg over at NRO has some useful words.

ACLU PRESIDENT NADINE STROSSEN AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA SQUARE OFF ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Mona Charen notes that C-Span carries a video of a recent dialog between Nadine Strossen of the ACLU and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  Both, according to Charen, make the best cases for their points of view.  I do not see an easy way to link to the dialog, but if you go to C-Span and look in the video library under "Judiciary/Courts" and check for October 15th, you'll find it.  It lasts an hour.

EVANGELICALS DO NOT READ

This morning a friend e-mailed me the following comment from Dennis Prager, the Jewish talk show host and author of numerous books.  I have long considered Prager one of the sharpest thinkers "out there."

"One thing I noticed about Evangelicals is that they do not read.  They do not read the Bible, they do not read the great Christian thinkers, they have never heard of Aquinas.  If they're Presbyterian, they've never read the founders of Presbyterianism.  I do not understand that.  As a Jew, that's confusing to me.  The commandment of study is so deep in Judaism that we immerse ourselves in study.  God gave us a brain, aren't we to use it in His service?  When I walk into an Evangelical Christian's home and see a total of 30 books, most of them best-sellers, I do not understand.  I have bookcases of Christian books, and I'm a Jew.  Why do I have more Christian books than 98 percent of the Christians in America?  That is so bizarre to me."   -  The Wittenburg Door magazine.

That indictment made me sad, almost ill.  I am well familiar with it, but Prager put it in a particularly stark way.  I went on the internet to see if I could locate the original interview.   Though the interview itself is not available on the internet, it apparently can be found in a 1990 Door interview, issue #114 - "A Civilization that believes in nothing."

MEANINGLESS POSTMODERN ACADEMIC JARGON PRODUCED BY THE DADA MACHINE

From Matthew J. Franck over at Phi Beta Cons:

A friend at Marshall University in West Virginia, Steve Cooper, sends along a link to a priceless resource, the Postmodernism Generator. A masterpiece of programming, the PoMoGen will supply you with a short essay, utterly meaningless, grammatically correct, and complete with footnotes, in the most fashionable academic jargon of our time.  And best of all, the randomly generated but highly impressive-looking nonsense is brand new every time you visit the site or click “refresh.”  Visit the site for ten minutes, print out some samples, and go up for tenure in your favorite humanities or social science department!

This is truly amazing.  What a great example of gobbledygook sounding learned and erudite. 

Top 15 Universites in the World

In an article on the 100 best universities in the world, Harvard is ranked #1, followed by #2 Cambridge,  #3 Oxford, with Yale and MIT tied for 4th.   Then Stanford University (6), California Institute of Technology (7),  University of California Berkeley (8), Imperial College London (9) , Princeton (10), University of Chicago (11), Columbia (12), Duke (13), Beijing University (14), Cornell University (15).     American universities make up 11 of the top 15 spots.    Harvard has an endowment of 26 billion dollars.    (HT: Phi Beta Cons)

Obituary for Common Sense

From The Brussels Journal which does not know the source of the following:

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn’t always fair, and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Keeping Up with China's Strategies

Commentary Magazine has published a useful article,  "China's Charm Offensive" by Joshua Kurlantzick.

As readers of this blog know, I think China needs to be watched carefully.  Its tactics need to be scrutinized and checkmated whenever possible.   Kurlantzick's valuable overview has as its two concluding paragraphs the following:

For now, the United States still enjoys some leverage over decision-makers in Beijing, who prize their high-level bilateral dialogue with the White House. But as China’s economy develops and becomes less reliant on foreign capital, America’s influence over its behavior will diminish even more steeply than it already has.

All of which is a sharp reminder that China remains not only an economic rival but a looming political danger. In many respects, indeed, China represents a more complicated potential adversary than the Soviet Union ever was. Our struggle with the hidebound USSR certainly had its “soft” side, involving the contest of ideas and of political and economic ideals. But the main struggle was in the arena of hard power, of military might and determination, and in the end this is what proved decisive. Countering the new China is a task requiring a kind of intellectual and ideological agility at which Americans are not much practiced. If democratic values are to prevail globally, we need even more rapidly to develop and to give life to some unaccustomed instruments of American influence.

One must read the whole article to better understand China's strategies.
 

Getting Up to Speed on the Tragedy that is Zimbabwe

  Jamie Glazov conducts an insightful and important interview with Geoffrey Nyarota, founder and former editor in chief of The Daily News, Zimbabwe's only independent newspaper.   He was awarded the World Association of Newspapers 2002 Golden Pen of Freedom in recognition of his outstanding service to the cause of press freedom in the face of constant persecution. He was forced to flee from the country to seek refuge in the United States.  He became a Nieman Fellow at  Harvard University and subsequently a fellow of the Shorenstein Center for the Press, Politics and Public Policy as well as of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, both also at Harvard.

Most recently Nyarota has authored Against the Grain which, according to Glazov's introduction, "discusses the trials and tribulations of the independent press under President Mugabe’s authoritarian regime in Zimbabwe.  The book also traces the decline of  Zimbabwe from the bread-basket of southern Africa to a basket itself, while highlighting the betrayal of the citizens of Zimbabwe by the former heroes who led them to independence from colonial rule in 1980."

Many of us know that Zimbabwe is a country in chaos, but our specific knowledge may be superficial and diffuse.  This interview fills in the picture.  In the interview, Nyarota tells Glazov that

original progressive developments have now been overshadowed over the past few years by retrogressive government policies, which have seen the standard of life deteriorate in the face of a serious economic meltdown. Shortages of commodities have become endemic while commodity prices have become unaffordable for the majority of the population. Unemployment now runs at more than 70 percent, with the rate of year-on-year inflation at 1,200 percent, by far the highest in the world. Not only has rampant corruption become entrenched, but the government has suppressed the democratic rights of citizens. Popular opposition to the government has been violently suppressed. Political violence and abuse of power and human rights have become prevalent.

Mark Steyn has authored "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It"

Mark Steyn has been called "probably the most widely read, and wittiest, columnist in the English-speaking world."   Amazon.com reviewer David McCune says of Steyn's book,

I'd call Mark Steyn's essay the single best distillation of the challenge posed to the West by radical Islam that I have ever read.

Regular readers of Mr. Steyn will not be unfamiliar with his central points:

1) In the ongoing conflict between the West and Islam, both the demographics and the will to power favor the Islamists. That a country like Spain, with a birth rate of 1.15 children per adult women, will extinguish itself in a few generations, while immigrants from countries such as Pakistan (birth rate 4.53) will move in to fill the vacuum.

2) That as an aggressive, unassimilated minority edges closer to a majority (as in France, with an estimated 30% Muslim population in the under 20 age group), the character of the democratic institutions will become more closely aligned with Islamic law and culture.

Michael Novak Coins the Word "Hypocrats"

Michael Novak itemizes the ways in which Democrats behave like Hypocrats.  A few excerpts:

Being a Hypocrat means never having to recognize a moral fault — in oneself. . .

Most religious people, at least those who are serious about churchgoing, and who reflect on what their beliefs actually mean, try hard to cut individuals a lot of slack in mercy and forgiveness.  Yet the slack they cut is for individuals, not for principles. Conservative religious people tend to be faithful to principle, but nonjudgmental about individuals: “Forgive the sinner...etc.” They are not willing to cut slack about what is right and wrong.
 
Hypocrats do pretty much the reverse.  They are wholly flexible on principle, and merciless to individuals who get in their way — from gay men like Congressmen Foley (whom they would have treated differently, were he a Democrat) to a Hall-of-Fame wrestling coach from Illinois . . .

Harvard Study: Massive Distrust Exists in Communities of Great Ethnic Diversity

A news report  contains the following story:

A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University's Robert Putnam, one of the world's most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.

Russia Asserting Itself in the Middle East?

Caroline Glick at the Jerusalem Post sees ominous signs of approaching war.  She titles her column, "As the storm of war approaches."

The clouds of the coming war are converging upon Israel. But our political and military leaders refuse to look up at the darkening sky.   The Russian bear has awakened after 15 years of hibernation. Under the leadership of former KGB commander President Vladimir Putin, Russia is reasserting its traditional hostility towards Israel.

Her column elaborates on these statements and she concludes:

ANY OBJECTIVE observer of the developments in our region understands that the storm of war is rapidly approaching us. With Moscow's blessing, the Palestinians, Hizbullah, Syria and Iran are steadfastly preparing for battle.

There is no doubt that Israel can weather the coming storm. But to do this, we must have political and military leaders who are willing to recognize its inexorable approach.

Sexual Views Divide American Politics

Rich Lowry over at National Review Online is a man pardonably skeptical over the Left's newfound concern for matters sexual.  He points out that

The great divide in our cultural politics continues to be sex. The cultural left considers sex all-important and not important at all. All-important because it is a crucial means of self-expression; not important because the when, where and how don’t matter so much (sex is sex so long as it’s consensual). The cultural right considers sex wonderful and dangerous. Wonderful because it is the ultimate consummation of love; dangerous because if it is not carefully circumscribed, it destroys individuals and cultures.   .   .   .

It would be a welcome development indeed if the Foley flap prompted a bipartisan turn toward the values of sexual probity.  It is sexual irresponsibility, in the form of out-of-wedlock childbearing, that is at the root of many of the country’s social ills.   But it’s not to be.   Foley will be wrung for partisan advantage and then forgotten, as the culture war rages on.

Jonah Goldberg offers some historical context to further underscore the political division in America over offensive sexual behavior. 

O'Reilly's New Book: "Culture Warrior"

Bill O'Reilly has written a new book:  Culture Warrior.   Rebecca Hagelin, the author of Home Invasion:  Protecting Your Family in a Culture That's Gone Stark Raving Mad, offers a review of Culture Warrior, saying:

O'Reilly's new book, "Culture Warrior," boldly describes two disparate worldviews that are competing for the very soul of our nation. On one side are the "traditionalists," those who know that America is a noble enterprise, a beacon of hope and light for the world, and who understand that our belief in God and our commitment to good has made us the greatest nation on earth. On the other side are the secular-progressives (S-Ps), who see America as imperialistic and intrinsically evil – and who want nothing more than to sanitize our classrooms and our public squares from the alleged poison of faith.

In an exclusive phone interview, Bill told me that the culture war in which we're all immersed is "not a political war, but is, at its heart, a social war." He's right. And I believe that the battle is also a spiritual one. It transcends politics. It's bigger than Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal, and the stakes are significantly higher than the next election.

The Soothing Quality of Tea Confirmed

According to this Telegraph (UK) article, a British study has shown that tea (in this case black tea) does, indeed, have soothing power and the ability to reduce the harmful effects of stress.  I find this interesting.   I knew a person once who had what seemed a steady stream of individuals coming to her door in need of comfort and counsel.  Invariably she would sit them down at her kitchen table and brew a fresh cup of tea.  I always thought she had the right idea, but now this evidence has come forward confirming the wisdom of her ministrations.

Gays and Narcissistic Victimology

At National Review's Corner blog Jonah Goldberg posts the following from a gay reader: 

Jonah:

The thing you have to understand is the complete and utter narcissistic victimology that is 90% of gay culture today.  As a gay man myself, it frequently disgusts me that our subculture's empowerment has conme at the expense of taste, morals, and common courtesy.  Since we were treated badly in the past, the feeling goes, we have the right to act any way way we see fit.  In a spectacular display of over-compensation, we have rejected the social standards that said we were filthy deviants, and now we perceive ourselves as faultless saints.  If it's gay, no matter how decadent, it's okay. 

Gerry Studds and Jim McGreevy were given free passes because they were victims' of the old standards (which no longer exist, but that has no bearing on our fault process—like those in favor of reparations for slavery, you are going to have to pay for calling us 'faggots' for the rest of eternity).  However, Foley's crimes are too much to bear, because he belongs to Republican Party, which is Our Enemy. 

I get this "us or them" treatment all the time when I declare that I don't decide where to cast my vote solely based on whose party platform trumpets gay rights, or the fact that even though I think we should be married, I think that it shouldn't be imposed by the courts, etc.  . . .

Ah, Sweet Reason: Use D.C. Teens as Pages

Kate O'Beirne, gifted with uncommon common sense, offers a suggestion for page program reform in the nation's capital: 

Why do well-connected teenagers have to come from all over the U.S. to spend a semester serving as pages?  In recent days, we've been reminded just who enjoys the benefits of this historic  program — sons and daughters, nieces and nephews of members of Congress, the Washington establishment and political donors.  Maybe it should be a program for disadvantaged teens rather than resume-enhancing for the already advantaged.  There are thousands of unemployed teenagers in Washington D.C.  who could work as pages and head home to their families every evening — no need to supervise them 24/7.  Hiring local teenagers would be one way to address the gulf between Capitol Hill and Washington D.C. and the program would be benefitting kids who know far less about government and politics than some congressman's 16-year-old.

Columbia University - Scary, Unsafe Place of Mob Rule

Wow. . .    Universities are losing credibility, except as incubators of viciousness and mob rule.   Champions of reason?  Civil discourse?  Free exchange of ideas?  Forget it.   Do Ivy League Universities display leadership in intellectual seriousness?   What a joke!

Take a look at Columbia University students physically attacking the stage where Minutemen Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist attempted to give a speech.    Michelle Malkin has the story complete with video and  a liveblogged report.   

Randy at Rightwinged.com says

Malkin has had great coverage of these incidents over the years and I recommend doing some digging around her blog to learn more about past incidents if you're just learning about this pattern of intolerant liberal behavior. It only took me a minute to dig up this one post that links to many of these incidents.

Dennis Prager: 5 Reasons Not to Shack Up

Good  article. Prager says:

First, no matter what you think when living together, your relationship with your significant other changes the moment you marry. You have now made a commitment to each other as husband and wife in front of almost everyone significant in your life. You now see each other in a different and more serious light.

Second, words matter. They deeply affect us and others. Living with your "boyfriend" is not the same as living with your "husband." And living with your "girlfriend" or any other title you give her is not the same as making a home with your "wife." Likewise, when you introduce that person as your wife or husband to people, you are making a far more important statement of that person's role in your life than you are with any other title.   (More)

Incoherence of the Left: Quarantine Gay Foley from Contact with Young Males but Fight Against the Ban on Gay Scoutmasters

The Wall Street Journal produced an interesting editorial on Congressman Mark Foley.    The Left says that Foley, a homosexual congressman, should have been quarantined from contact with young male pages.  And yet the Left screams at the Boy Scouts' refusal to have gay scoutmasters.   Is the Left coming back to more "traditional values"?   Or is it simply content to live in a state of confusion and hypocrisy for political purposes?

Here are quotes from the Wall Street Journal editorial:

In today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

Yes, Mr. Hastert and his staff should have done more to quarantine Mr. Foley from male pages after the first email came to light. But if that's the standard, we should all admit we are returning to a rule of conduct that our cultural elite long ago abandoned as intolerant.

Islam and the West: An Historical Sketch of Jihadist Imperialism

Fjordman, writing in The Brussels Journal  offers a valuable, wide-ranging article dealing with historical relationships between Islam and the West -- a history that we ignore at our peril.   His article is titled "Who Are We, Who Are Our enemies -- The Cost of Historical Amnesia."  From the Barbary Jihad piracy and before, up to the present day, Fjordman draws on the historical record of Muslim  jihadist imperialism which should sober everyone now living in freedom in the West.   That freedom is bcoming increasingly uncertain and fragile.  This article is a valuable resource.

COLLEGES SEEKING HOME-SCHOOLED STUDENTS

This Associated Press story says that more and more colleges are actively seeking out home-schooled students.    From the article:

Home-schooled students - whose numbers in this country range from an estimated 1.1 million to as high as 2 million - often come to college equipped with the skills necessary to succeed in higher education, said Regina Morin, admissions director of Columbia College.

Such assets include intellectual curiosity, independent study habits and critical thinking skills, she said.

"It's one of the fastest-growing college pools in the nation," she said. "And they tend to be some of the best prepared."

Tutors in India Helping U.S Students

According to a Reuters report,

BOSTON (Reuters) - Private tutors are a luxury many American families cannot afford, costing anywhere between $25 to $100 an hour. But California mother Denise Robison found one online for $2.50 an hour -- in India.

"It's made the biggest difference. My daughter is literally at the top of every single one of her classes and she has never done that before," said Robison, a single mother from Modesto.                               

Her 13-year-old daughter, Taylor, is one of 1,100 Americans enrolled in Bangalore-based TutorVista, which launched U.S. services last November with a staff of 150 "e-tutors" mostly in India with a fee of $100 a month for unlimited hours.

Taylor took two-hour sessions each day for five days a week in math and English -- a cost that tallies to $2.50 an hour, a fraction of the $40 an hour charged by U.S.-based online tutors such as market leader Tutor.com that draw on North American teachers, or the usual $100 an hour for face-to-face sessions.  (More)

This is a fascinating new development.

Ramesh Ponnuru Reviews Sen. John Danforth's New Book "Faith and Politics"

Ramesh Ponnuru (author of The Party of Death)  does his usual excellent job coolly dissecting arguments as he reviews former Senator John Danforth's new book, Faith and Politics: How the 'Moral Values Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together.'   When Ponnuru is finished --it's a gentle review, not polemical-- one still wonders how Danforth had the nerve to publish it, filled as it is with so much confused thought and a failure to interact with significant arguments.  A few excerpts:

Are Christian conservatives guilty of divisiveness for campaigning to get Roe v. Wade overturned? Or are they responding legitimately to liberals’ divisive campaign to get the courts to impose an extreme version of the abortion policy they favor? Danforth tends to divide the American political world into “Christian conservatives” and “moderates” (liberals barely appear in his book), with the former portrayed as divisive and the latter as reconcilers. But that set of categories is itself divisive, as categories tend to be.

Danforth employs an idiosyncratic definition of “wedge issues,” which makes them a tactic associated exclusively with Christian conservatives. It is in keeping with his oddly ahistorical perspective. “In recent years,” he writes, “the wisdom of our founding fathers has been challenged as the Republican Party has identified itself with the political agenda of Christian conservatives.” This is a conventional narrative, but it makes it appear that the Christian Right created itself ex nihilo: as though it had not arisen in response to political and cultural trends it considered aggressive. Many Christian conservatives would say that they are trying to reclaim some of the Founders’ wisdom that we have cast aside. Maybe they are wrong, but Danforth does not even consider the possibility. . .  .

His discussion of stem cells — he is a major proponent of cloning human embryos for research purposes in his home state of Missouri — is the most embarrassing section of the book. He gets the science wrong. . . .     He repeatedly misstates the pro-life case against the research.

His descriptions of the Terri Schiavo case are tendentious at every turn, failing to engage with or acknowledge the existence of any of the pro-lifers’ arguments.

I wonder how such half-baked, ill-thought-out books get published, no matter how "distinguished" the writer. 

Getting a College Education: It Doesn't Just "Happen"

Jeffrey Hart, long-time English professor at Dartmouth, published an article on "How to Get a College Education."    The article carries the subtitle: "It can be done, even in the Ivy League, if you keep your eye on the goal of education."    Here are useful suggestions on what courses to take and what courses to avoid.  Hart's essay first appeared in 1996 and  National Review republished it on 9/29/06.   It is definitely worth a careful read.

Public Universities Now Pontificate on Biblical Texts Treating Homosexuality

I didn't know that public universities are now taking theological positions (!) concerning homosexuality.  David French, of the Alliance Defense fund, notes the following:

Faced with large and active religious student groups who are often engaged in public debate over the Left’s currently fashionable civil-rights issue — homosexuality — public universities simply cannot restrain themselves. They are taking sides, not just politically, ideologically, and culturally, but religiously.

Take this official statement from the Georgia Institute of Technology (in its so-called “Safe Space” training manual):

Many religious traditions have taught, and some continue to teach, that homosexuality is immoral. These condemnations are based primarily on a few isolated passages from the Bible. Historically, Biblical passages taken out of context have been used to justify such things as slavery, the inferior status of women, and the persecution of religious minorities.

Displeased that the State of Georgia is comparing those who hold traditional religious views of sexuality to slaveowners? At least Georgia does not make religious conservatives look as, well, silly as the University of Michigan does:

Some texts of the Old Testament are used to condemn homosexuality. Taken literally and out of context, Biblical passages can be used to justify slavery, prohibit the wearing of red dresses, and eating of shrimp and shellfish, and to reinforce the inferiority of women.

Such commentary strikes me as quite out of bounds.   Of course texts can be taken out of context, but that is not to say that the forbidding of homosexual practices are such texts.  So now universities have become expert in biblical hermeneutics?  See Robert A. J. Gagnon The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Text and Hermeneutics and also Robert A. J. Gagnon and Dan O. Via,  Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views.   

Note:  ADF is challenging Georgia Tech’s Safe Space Training program in federal court.

The Limits of Roman Catholic - Muslim Dialog

John F. Cullinan (former senior foreign policy advisor to the U.S. Catholic bishops) comments on the Pope Benedict XVI's latest remarks, saying

As the pope brought to a close — at least for now — the uproar that followed his September 12 remarks on faith and reason in Regensburg, he reiterated yet again his very precise bottom line for future dialogue with the Muslim world.

Benedict’s [later] brief remarks [to diplomats from Muslim-majority states accredited to the Holy See], delivered in French as a courtesy to his interlocutors, are fully intelligible only in the light of the four ecclesial texts he cites or quotes from. . .

What’s relevant is that Jews and Muslims occupy wholly separate categories in Catholic thought.  "Nostra Aetate" acknowledges “the spiritual ties that link the people of the New Covenant [Christians] with the stock of Abraham [Jews].” More specifically, “Christians and Jews have such a common spiritual heritage,” grounded in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), that joint “biblical and theological enquiry” is very much in order.

There is, however, no such “common spiritual heritage” between Christianity and Islam (especially since orthodox Muslims hold that the Quran wholly supercedes and replaces the Bible). In fact, the Council Fathers merely note that “the Church also has a high regard for the Muslims” while carefully prescinding from any comment on Islam as such. (Benedict repeats this formulation almost word for word in his September 25 remarks.) In comparison with ecumenical dialogue with other Christians (with whom reunion remains the ultimate goal in accordance with Jn 17:21-22) and inter-religious dialogue with Jews (with whom both genuine theological and practical collaboration is possible), dialogue with Muslims is by nature limited to such purely practical initiatives — above all, forging agreed rules of the road for avoiding conflict — that Benedict raises in two carefully chosen quotations.

The upshot is that purely theological dialogue between Christians and Muslims is pointless, if not counterproductive. Whatever its other attributes, the most fundamental elements of all orthodox Christian thought are Trinitarian and Christocentric; and these are precisely the same elements that orthodox Muslims necessarily find blasphemous on the one hand and idolatrous on the other. What’s more, sharia jurisprudence plays roughly the same role in Islam as systematic theology in Christianity. That’s why purely theological dialogue inevitably mixes apples and oranges. But basic disagreement over the nature of God in no way precludes discussing how best to coexist peacefully in a pluralistic world. That’s the meaning of Benedict’s September 25 exhortation in favor of “sincere and respectful dialogue, based on ever more authentic reciprocal knowledge which, with joy, recognizes the religious values we have in common and, with loyalty, respects the differences.” In other words, it’s possible to share — and discuss — certain religious values without sharing religious truths.

There is much more in this article.  It truly needs to be read in full.  I think Pope Benedict XVI is opening a completely new chapter in the relationship of Christians (not only Catholics) to the Muslim world.  It strikes me that Pope Benedict XVI is the right Pope at the right time.

OVEREXPOSURE TO BEAUTIFUL WOMEN: WHAT HAPPENS?

What happens when men are constantly exposed to beautiful women (on TV, in movies, in magazines, in advertisements, etc)?  We're not talking here of pornographic images;  rather,  just the constant sight of beautiful women.  What happens to a man?  How does he view the more ordinary women he encounters every day at work or at home? 

I ran across this question in J.P. Moreland and Klaus Issler's book The Lost Virtue of Happiness.  They refer to Michael Levine's cover article for the July/August 2001 issue of Psychology Today titled Why I Hate Beauty .   Moreland summarizes:

Levin... argued that constant exposure to beautiful women has made men less interested in dating (if single) or in their wives (if married).  Levine cited studies in which men were exposed to (nonpornographic)pictures of beautiful actresses.   The men were then asked to rate the desireability of a typical woman in their social environment (if single) or of their wives.  In both cases they were much less interested in the women available to them.  Levine pointed out that for all of human history prior to the automobile and television, the average man was exposed to very few people in general and to very few extremely beautiful women in particular.  Limited in travel and with no television, most men learned to relate to women on a basis other than beauty. But today, said Levine, the average man sees plenty of absolutely gorgeous women each night on television shows and commercials and gradually loses interest in the women in his 'real life.'"  (p. 22)

Interesting stuff.  I've noticed in recent days (before reading this excerpt) the extraordinary number of attractive women on TV compared to the more ordinary women I see walking the aisles of the local Wal-Mart.   One can't help but notice....   I'll return to this subject at a later date.