Stones Cry Out

May 04, 2005

I Want My M(onk)TV

(Hat tip: The Anchoress)

Though most reality tv participants get their fifteen minutes of fame and disappear back into obscurity, here's one reality tv show that gave its participants something eternal.

Five men, ranging from an atheist in the pornography trade to a former Protestant paramilitary, have found their lives unexpectedly transformed in the latest incarnation of reality television - the monastery.

More Oh Brother! than Big Brother, the five underwent a spiritual makeover by spending 40 days and 40 nights living with Roman Catholic monks in Worth Abbey, West Sussex.

The experiment, which will be shown on BBC 2 this month, was designed to test whether the monastic tradition begun by St Benedict 1,500 years ago still has any relevance to the modern world.

Although participants were not required to vote each other out, they faced the challenge of living together in a community and following a disciplined regime of work and prayer. By the end, the atheist, Tony Burke, 29, became a believer and gave up his job producing trailers for a sex chat line after having what he described as a "religious experience".

Gary McCormick, 36, the former Ulster Defence Association member, who spent much of his early life in prison, began to overcome his inner demons.

Peter Gruffydd, a retired teacher, regained the faith he had rejected in his youth and Nick Buxton, 37, a Cambridge undergraduate, edged closer to becoming an Anglican priest.

The fifth "novice", 32-year-old Anthony Wright, who works for a London legal publishing company, started to come to terms with his childhood traumas.

Posted by Drew at 08:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Deleting an "Incredible" Scene

At Townhall.com, Paul D. Gallagher writes about a scene that was deleted from the theatrical release of The Incredibles, but shows up on the DVD. It would have been interesting to hear the reaction a theater audience might have had to this scene. I suspect certain members of the audience would have stood and applauded. But I'll let Gallagher tell about it:

The setting is a backyard barbeque in their neighborhood. Helen Parr is introduced to Beth, a commodities broker. Beth talks excitedly about her job, then asks what Helen does. “I’m a homemaker,” Helen replies. Blank stare from Beth, who cuts off Helen’s next sentence with a curt, “That’s nice.” Beth walks off, and Helen scowls.

A minute later, Helen overhears Beth talking to some other neighbors:

Beth: “Throw away my prime years trailing after a bunch of snotty kids? No, thank you! Hello, no thanks! Hello, I want to do something with my life!”

Helen: “Wait a minute! You consider raising a family … nothing?”

Beth: “Well, it’s fine if you’re not suited for more substantial things.”

Helen: “Do you have any idea how much suffering would fail to take root if more people were just good parents? What’s more important than that? What kind of job?”

Beth: “Uh … uh …”

Helen: “A job saving lives? Is that important? What about risking my life?”

Beth: “Well, I … uh …”

Helen: “What about confronting evil on a daily basis for years so that people like you can sleep in safety and security? Would you consider that kind of job ‘substantial’?”

Beth: “Yeah. I would. Yes.”

Helen: “Well, that’s the job I gave up for my new job -- raising a family. And nobody’s going to tell me it’s any less important.”

Wow. Let’s take a moment to let that sink in. We have a hero in a major film defending the job of homemaker. Rewind it all you like. Then notice the sky’s not falling. And if you think I liked it, imagine how my wife, Cindy -- a homemaker and mother of six -- felt about it.

Like I said, imagine a theater full of stay-at-home moms who have taken the kids out to a Saturday matinee showing would have reacted. Loud applause? I think so.

Before you presume some Hollywood conspiracy to take out this powerful scene, read on:

Brad Bird said he included the scene because it reflected what his own wife encountered every time they went to a social function. People who found it easy to chat with others who worked outside the home felt awkward and didn’t know what to say when they met this strange creature who called herself . . . a homemaker.

. . . But Bird said he cut it reluctantly and only because he realized it would be better to begin with the heroes being heroes (and he was right). Besides, the finished film still strongly endorses the homemaker option (albeit implicitly), and the scene is available for all to see on DVD.

By the way, if you haven't seen Brad Bird's "The Iron Giant," go out and rent (or buy) that one. It's quite enjoyable.

Posted by Drew at 08:20 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Cool Pictures of Storm Clouds

Kent at Trolling in Shallow Water doesn't know where these pictures came from, but he's posting them anyway.

This is what storm chasers live for. Typically, I don't mind severe thunderstorms. In fact, I think they're pretty cool to watch through the big picture window in the living room. But when the wind picks up, I head for the basement. Tornados are one of my recurring nightmares. I've never seen one, but when I was a kid one touched down in our tiny town. If you'd traced the path of the damage, it appeared that it might have touched down a half a block to the SW of our house, and then again a half a block to the NE of our house, and then again about another block NNE, where it must have stayed down, doing lots of damage in a two-block area. One person was killed by downed power lines. I was a bit freaked out, to put it mildly.

I'd still like to see an actual tornado someday, out on the prairie where you can watch 'em from a distance.

Knowing that I'm a big baby about tornados, I don't know why I went to see Twister when it came out in the summer of '96. But I did. And it just so happened that a big windstorm hit Our Fair City later that evening. At the time I lived in a second-floor apartment, and I spent most of the night in the stairwell.

I should have known better.

Welcome to tornado season. I'll be in the basement until September.

Posted by Drew at 08:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 03, 2005

Serving God, one ink cartridge at a time

Some monks make wine, and some make delicious fruitcakes.

And then there are the Laser Monks, providing office supplies at huge savings.

I'm not making this up.

Posted by Drew at 07:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Narnia movie a minefield for Disney

The Life section in today's USA Today has this lengthy article (lengthy for USA Today anyway) on the new Narnia movie which Disney studios hopes will be the first of a seven-film franchise. The first trailer for the movie will air Saturday night during ABC's showing of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and a longer trailer will be attached to this summer's most highly-anticipated film: Revenge of the Sith. The film itself won't arrive in theaters until December.

I'm looking forward to seeing the film, but it will be interesting to see if Disney can avoid all the pitfalls that accompany bringing a book like this to the screen. Consider this:

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is an enormously popular book: Until HarperCollins got the US Publication rights, LWW was considered the first book in the series (it was the first Narnia book that Lewis wrote, and really should be read first even though HarperCollins numbers it second), and as such, it's the book most people will have read if they read any of the series at all. Fans of the book will want to see a film version that's faithful to the story. Even minor detractions will cause an uproar from some quarters.

The story is a parallel of the death and resurrection of Christ: C.S. Lewis was one of the greatest Christian thinkers of the last century. His books are read, reread, quoted, excerpted, and passed along almost like religious tracts by many Christians, and Christians -- who already have a love/hate relationship with Hollywood -- will want to make doubly sure that a film version of one of the best-loved novels in Christendom remains faithful to its message of sacrifice and redemption. If the film downplays or dilutes the Christian message in any way, count on an outcry.

Actually, count on an outcry anyway, because no matter how faithful the film version is, some people won't be happy unless there's an altar call at the end. And other people will reject it because a) it's a fantasy, b) it's got a witch in it, and c) the Christ figure isn't Jesus himself.

Disney has been repeatedly targeted by some Christian and pro-family organizations: In recent years, Disney's managed to alienate the very audience it seeks, so this is a big risk for Disney. If they don't do it right, they will only be confirming for some Christians how seemingly out of touch they are.

The first trailers will be telling. A positive reaction from Narnia fans will likely result in an overall positive feeling toward the filim as the release date approaches. Negative reaction will dog the film until December.

I'm hoping Disney manages to pull it off, if only because I want to see film versions of the later books in the series. But I'm already wondering how Disney will handle "The Last Battle," which is essentially the Narnian "Revelation" with all that end of the world heaven and hell stuff. If the Narnian worship of Aslan is Lewis's parallel to Christianity, what will Disney do with the Arab-like Calormenes who appear in later books, and whose religion is Lewis's parallel to Islam?

In spite of the changes to the source material, Tolkien fans were so pleased with the first film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy that their initial outcry turned to fevered anticipation for the next two films. But because the Narnia series has such strong religious symbolism, Disney's going to be walking a minefield with each release.

Posted by Drew at 01:52 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 30, 2005

Video footage of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker

Here is a link to a video news release about the rediscovery of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker which contains a brief glimpse of the bird itself (as well as archival footage from over 60 years ago). (Hat tip: Laura Erickson's Birder Blog, which also has a number of entries on the find.)

The video is really rough . . . like seeing fuzzy pictures of Nessie or Bigfoot or UFOs. But it was enough to identify this flying object.

Posted by Drew at 08:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 17, 2005

Why I am switching to Coca-Cola. Forever.

Was this ad campaign developed by Pokemon-saturated high fructose corn syrup-addled tragically hip first graders? Because I do not get it.

Happily, this means I am not the desired demographic.

But, . . . who is? Thirsty robots on a diet?

Posted by Drew at 09:54 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

April 15, 2005

The inertia of slack

Sorry for my lack of contribution to this site. It's been a busy week. And when it wasn't busy, it was far too nice outside for me to spend it sitting in front of the computer.

Part of the problem (and part of the solution is admitting it) is that the longer I stay away -- for whatever reason -- the easier staying away becomes. When you're uninspired, it's easier to stay uninspired than to expend energy in the search for inspiration.

But while I didn't spend a lot of leisure time in front of the computer, I did spent a few hours in front of the television. And here's what's been inspiring me:

Wonderfalls was a television series that aired briefly on the Fox network last year. Though it launched to critical acclaim and quickly gained a strong following, it wasn't strong enough, and the series was cancelled after only four episodes aired. But 13 episodes were produced, and they're now out on DVD.

Though I've only seen about half the episodes so far, I'm really enjoying the series. The premise is certainly original. The protagonist, Jaye Tyler, is a twenty-something slacker who attended Brown University and earned a degree in philosophy, but then returned to her home in Niagara Falls where she works in a souvenir shop and lives in a trailer park, much to the chagrin of her affluent, successful family.

Though Jaye's main personality trait is an ironic detachment to life and the people around her, everything changes when a lion figurine at the souvenir shop begins talking to her. The lion (and a wide assortment of knick-knacks and chotchkies) start commanding Jaye to commit random acts of kindness. Though these acts don't always seem like kindness, no one is more surprised than Jaye when obeying the voices brings about good consequences for those around her.

On the surface it sounds like a one-gimmick show, yet over the course of just the seven episodes I've seen, I'd say the show works on multiple levels. On one level, the show perfectly captures that angsty post-college period of finding your place in the world. The snappy dialogue and ironic sensibility fit the wacky situations that Jaye encounters. But on a deeper level viewers will notice existential questions about God and life and "the meaning of it all." This other level isn't readily apparent in the four episodes that aired, but start to color the series in the episodes viewers will only get to see on DVD.

Jaye, the slacker philosophy student who hears voices and reluctantly accepts her role as "Joan of Niagara Falls" find a fitting foil in her brother, an atheist theology student who first thinks Jaye is going crazy, but begins doubting his belief that nothing is out there.

Christians will probably be a little put off by prime-time-level obscenities ("bitch" or "ass" for example) and the frank talk of sex (the series is not appropriate for children in spite of having the occasional talking puppet), but may find much to embrace in a tale of a woman who regularly hears a still, small voice and obeys it. In being forced to connect with other people -- in spite of herself -- she changes both their lives and her own.

The show has also has me reflecting on God's providence, and passages such as Jeremiah 29:11 or Romans 8:28. The objects that speak to Jaye do not explain themselves, and at times their instructions seem counterproductive (in one episode she is told to smash the taillight on a car) but there are always good results.

And sometimes following God means doing things that just seem . . . crazy. Or sometimes things seem like they must be outside of God's will because they don't make sense from a human point of view. But everything works out for the good anyway.

In that sense the show strengthens my own faith and has me listening a little more carefully for the still, small voice.

Drew says "check it out"

Posted by Drew at 05:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 07, 2005

Group opposes lowering flag for Pope

This week I'd noticed that a number of flags around Our Fair City were at half-mast, and I couldn't figure out why. Then it occurred to me that it was probably for the Pope. Rather unexpected, given that he wasn't an American, but on the whole I think everyone would agree that it's a nice gesture.

Everyone except these people.

An anti-religion group is denouncing [Wisconsin] Gov. Jim Doyle's executive order to lower flags to mark the death of Pope John Paul II.

Doyle's directive appears like "an endorsement of Roman Catholicism over other religious viewpoints," according to the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

On Saturday, the governor praised the pope as both an inspiration spiritual leader and a man who has made "a significant impact on social justice." Doyle cited the pope's fight against communism, his opening of dialogue with other faiths, and his fight for peace around the world.

The governor's office today noted President Bush had directed that flags be lowered to half-staff at all public buildings. The governor's directive matches the president's order.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, saw the pope in a different light from the governor.

"The pope was the world's leading sexist," Gaylor said in a statement issued today. "Why should Wisconsin women be expected to revere his anti-woman, antediluvian teachings?" The pope also had been critical of gay marriages, the statement noted.

"Let's reserve the honor of half-staff for true American heroes," Gaylor said.

Hmmmm. How did she feel about flags at half-staff for Ronald Reagan? I wonder . . .

Anyway, here's a link to the group's statement. Oh, look! Reagan is mentioned!

Has there ever been anything like this media adulation? Whole front news sections were devoted yesterday to "His Holiness," as if the whole world were Catholic. It is hard to imagine the death of any world leader summoning the same kind of uncritical coverage, with the possible exception of an assassinated U.S. President. Former Pres. Reagan's death last summer certainly rated nothing like this.

Go to the link for the whole ridiculous thing. I shouldn't be giving these guys any more attention than they're already getting, because I know they just love it.

Posted by Drew at 02:04 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 06, 2005

Euthanasia and Co-Dependency

The Pope wasn't the only person who passed away while I was taking a blogging break.

This third attempt by the courts to end Terri Schiavo's life succeeded. And as a result I can't help but think that we as a nation failed. The polls that showed that nearly 70% of Americans supported the removal of her feeding tube utterly astound me. This was not, as some seemed to think, an issue that followed the usual political divides. Conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, supported ending her life.

I commented earlier that I thought the reason so many people supported removal of her feeding tube was because we fear that we may one day be in that state ourselves, and because we don't think we could handle it, we don't really want her to handle it either.

Rachel Rose, guest-blogging for her daughter at The Dawn Patrol, says this is an issue of co-dependency. (Now there's a psychobabble phrase I haven't heard in quite awhile. I think it's fallen out of vogue.)

It must have been about 15 years ago. The concept of co-dependency was just making the rounds at the time. A friend of mine was interested in learning more about it. She decided to attend an open Codependents Anonymous meeting. When I met her afterwards, I asked her how it went. "Ridiculous", she replied. "There was a woman there who described her mother as saying, "Here, take a lozenge. I have a sore throat."

"What's wrong with that?" I playfully rejoined.

This funny episode became a sad object lesson to me today, as I began to see my American brethren as (maybe) fitting into the roles of just "co-dependent" people, good people, compassionate people, but pathologically overidentifying with how they thought they would feel in Terri's place. It is, of course, impossible for anyone to know how they would really feel. Any student of elementary logic knows that A cannot be B unless all the attributes of both are equal. This is one of the big rational problems with relativism. Yet, these moral relativists were in so much pain looking at Terri and thinking about how they thought she must be feeling. There had to be a way to stop those intolerable feelings. "That's it!" they concluded.

"Here, Terri. Let's have your feeding tube. I have a sore psyche."

Sure it's darkly amusing, but I think there's something to this connection between co-dependency and our cultural support of euthanasia and doctor-asssisted suicide.

Posted by Drew at 10:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 05, 2005

Gene Robinson hints that Jesus was gay

Greg at What Attitude Problem says "Gene Robinson is a goiter on the body of Christianity."

A goiter? Why a goiter? Well, while you're pondering that, ponder this: in recent comments, Rev. Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church of the U.S. whose ordination made headlines not too long ago, seemed to be hinting that Jesus was gay.

Bishop Robinson, whose consecration in 2003 triggered a schism between evangelicals and liberals in the worldwide Anglican Communion, was giving an address entitled "Homosexuality and the Body of Christ: Is There a New Way?"

In answer to a question from the congregation about how the acceptance of homosexuality could be squared with the scriptural emphasis on redemption for sins, the Bishop replied: "Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values, this man that we follow was single, as far as we know, travelled with a bunch of men, had a disciple who was known as 'the one whom Jesus loved' and said my family is not my mother and father, my family is those who do the will of God. None of us likes those harsh words. That's who Jesus is, that's who he was at heart, in his earthly life.

"Those who would posit the nuclear family as the be all and end all of God's creation probably don't find that much in the gospels to support it," he said.

While Robinson certainly doesn't come right out and say it, he does seem to be strongly suggesting it, while at the same time severely downplaying the importance of the nuclear family. (Maybe this can form the plot of a new Dan Brown conspiracy thriller. "Oops! I was wrong about the whole Mary Magdalene thing.")

More here.

Posted by Drew at 01:36 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

March 28, 2005

Simon Cowell is good for Self-Esteem

Accompanied by a rather frightening illustration of Paula Abdul, Bret Stephens' WSJ editorial last Friday focuses on "American Idol," and suggests that the real star of the show is Simon Cowell, not because he's a particularly pleasant individual, but because he's "judgmental."

Of the three judges, Stephens has this to say about Randy Jackson:

He is strictly about performance. If a singer does poorly, he'll complain she was "pitchy"; if she does well, then she's Mr. Jackson's Dawg: "You were hot, man: I give you props for that." In the Jackson world view, either you succeeded or you didn't, but no performer's feelings will ever be hurt by a word he says because it's all about the singing, never about the singer.

I'd also like to add this: Randy Jackson needs to build a bigger vocabulary. A'ight, dawg?

Of Paula Abdul, Stephens says:

Although she is the only performer among the judges, she never seems to care about the performances themselves. What she cares about is each contestant's "potential": She wants them to feel proud no matter what. If she were a pedagogue, she'd be into social promotion; her fundamental belief is self-belief. It certainly took her far.

And Paula Adbul certainly seems to enjoy her role. Watch closely and you will often see her leaping to her feet and groovin' along with the contestants. She'll also swoon dramatically if some crooner makes her weak in the knees. And she also seems to be the most emotionally invested in the contestants, and perhaps it's because as a performer herself she remembers all too well the cold hand of judgment.

But the cold hand of judgment is what's needed sometimes, and that's where Cowell comes in:

And then there is Mr. Cowell, the daddy who is not afraid to spank the children. . . . The greater part of Mr. Cowell's appeal, however, is his honesty. . . . of sparing people from the worst of themselves. "I met someone the other night who's 28 years old," Mr. Cowell said once, "and he hasn't worked a day since he left college because he's pursuing a dream he'll never, ever realize: He thinks he's a great singer. Actually, he's crap. But nobody has said to him, 'Why have you been wasting your time for eight years?'"

Sure, Simon's harsh judgments garner him lots of boos from the audience, but aren't his judgments exactly what some people need to hear?

Back in February, USA Today had this interesting article on how the seeds sown by the "Self-Esteem Movement" back in the 70s have now grown:

Kids born in the '70s and '80s are now coming of age. The colorful ribbons and shiny trophies they earned just for participating made them feel special. But now, in college and the workplace, observers are watching them crumble a bit at the first blush of criticism.

"I often get students in graduate school doing doctorates who made straight A's all their lives, and the first time they get tough feedback, the kind you need to develop skills," says Deborah Stipek, dean of education at Stanford University. "I have a box of Kleenex in my office because they haven't dealt with it before."

. . .

Roy Baumeister, a psychology professor at Florida State University in Tallahassee, says he had "high hopes" for the benefits of boosting self-esteem when he began studying it more than 30 years ago. But his lengthy review of 18,000 articles, published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, ended with the realization that only two clear benefits emerge from high self-esteem: enhanced initiative, which boosts confidence, and increased happiness. "There is not nearly as much benefit as we hoped," he says. "It's been one of the biggest disappointments of my career."

I don't find any of this particularly surprising. Nor did Orson Scott Card, who wrote on the subject in his Jan. 23rd column at Ornery.org. Card manages to bring in both American Idol and the Baumeister study which was the subject of an article in the January issue of Scientifc American.

Roy F. Baumeister, Jennifer D. Campbell, Joachim I. Krueger and Kathleen D. Vohs published an article in the January 2005 Scientific American titled "Exploding the Self-Esteem Myth."

Their method was not so much research as a review of research.

They went through all the published research on self-esteem and immediately eliminated all the studies that depended on self-reporting along.

Here's the problem: If somebody reports that they have a very positive self-image, and then tells you that he is very successful in his job and his social life, what have you actually learned?

That people who have a high opinion of themselves have a high opinion of themselves.

Duh.

. . .

There is no statistically significant connection between high self-esteem and genuine achievement, ability, or successfulness. Not in the real world.

Except in one area: Making new acquaintances like you. If you have high self-esteem, you're probably a little bit better at making friends (though it's not inevitable -- just slightly more likely).

Card doesn't suggest completely eliminating "You can do it!" boosterism, but says it's important to strike a balance between building up esteem and leveling the necessary critique. Failing to provide the honest truth, Card says, is actually a selfish act, which I think is an interesting way to look at it.

The truth might hurt at the moment -- but nowhere near as badly as seeing themselves made ridiculous in front of an audience of millions.

Yet I can also understand their friends and family. It's so much easier just to say, "Sure, you're great, you're wonderful" and then change the subject. No confrontation. No moments of unhappiness that you've caused.

Praising people who have done nothing to deserve praise is the lazy, selfish thing to do. It makes them like you while setting them up for embarrassment and failure later.

He closes with some good advice:

Here's what works: You teach children the connection between work and achievement.

Great achievements aren't made by feeling good about yourself. They're made by boldness, originality, hard work, painstaking attention to detail, long practice, self-effacing cooperation, reliability, and a host of other attributes and actions.

Whom would you rather hire to work for you? The person who thinks he's wonderful all the time, regardless of what he does, or the person who is always questioning the quality of his own work and trying to do better?

. . .

Children need encouragement -- but they also need realistic assessments of their current level of achievement so they know what they need to work on.

The people who know them best and love them most are in the best position to do this.

. . .

Praise real achievements, however small, and you help a child. Praise him regardless of achievement, and you do damage, either to your own credibility or to the child's ability to know himself well enough to improve.

This is so obvious it shouldn't even need saying.

Probably. But it's always good to hear people say it.

Boo Simon Cowell if you like, but he might just be doing these contestants a favor.

Posted by Drew at 11:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 23, 2005

Screwtape proposes another toast

I'd been meaning to link to this after The Anchoress pointed it out. Meghan Cox Gurdon, writing at the National Review Online, does a superb job imagining what C. S. Lewis's netherworld bureaucrat Screwtape might have to say about many modern moral issues, such as embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and Terri Schiavo. The key to unlocking the worst in the human heart, says Gurdon's Screwtape, is vanity.

"Vanity is a rusty key that was left lying about, and it was I alone who saw what it could unlock at this point in human history." "It is true," Screwtape continues with a shrug, "that much of the groundwork was already laid. We had already convinced people of the rightness of destroying inconvenient life. Now they talk quite coolly of "blastocysts," and "clumps of cells" and "surplus embryos." My genius was to recognize that they needed just a little push to be convinced, with their mania for recycling, that by harvesting something that would otherwise be chucked out, they are doing a positive good! Think of it: They believe they occupy "the moral high ground." Oh, the profits for us — "

Go here for the whole thing.

Posted by Drew at 08:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 22, 2005

We are all Terri Schiavo

Though we often refer to modern society as a "culture of death," never has death been less present than it is today. We no longer routinely face death. Death occurs in hospitals and nursing homes where the elderly and infirm are hidden away from society. Because we do not regularly bear witness to the ravages of disease and decay upon our bodies, I might suggest that on the whole we Americans are ill-equipped to face it when it comes.

For this reason, opinions on the Terri Schiavo case do not seem to follow the usual conservative/liberal political opinions (except perhaps in Congress where pandering to one's perceived constituencies is part of the job description). Friends who self-identify as liberal/left have also lined up in support of Terri Schiavo's parents. Friends who lean rightward are also insistent that she be "let go."

Because deep down we fear crippling infirmity, . . . because we are not equipped to deal with it, . . . because we look at Terri Schiavo and recognize that "there but for the grace of God go I," we wish to "end her suffering." Because we would never want to live like that, we believe it's best that no one else has to live like that either.

Because we have accepted the ideal of "quality of life," and have drawn our own arbitrary lines marking the point at which quality of life ends, we are entirely willing to draw that line for others as well.

The reason so many people support ending Terri Schiavo's life is because we are all potential Terri Schiavos, and it scares the crap out of us.

Posted by Drew at 07:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What if?

Just in case you need some perspective on the Terri Schiavo case, Noel at Sharp Knife, is happy to provide. (Hat tip: What Attitude Problem)

If Terry Schiavo had only starred in "Superwoman", we'd find a way not to kill her.

If she were a corporation, we'd indict the Chief Financial Officer--her HINO (husband-in-name-only).

If she were a killer, she'd be protected under the supreme court's ban on executing the retarded.

If she were a terrorist, Teddy Kennedy would be making blistering speeches on the Senate floor condemning her torture-by-starvation.

If she were a teen-aged murderer, she'd be spared execution under the 'Cruel & Unusual' clause.

If she were Scott Peterson, she'd get an automatic appeal...and 20 more years of life.

If she were a beached dolphin, we'd demand not just her feeding, but that heroic measures be taken.

If she were in Guantanamo, we'd see to it that she had appropriate meals and medical care.

If she were on another Death Row, her parents and her priest would be allowed visitation.

. . .

And if we hadn't been desensitized by three decades of the Death Culture . . .

would we even ask "If"?

Posted by Drew at 06:34 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 17, 2005

Like Flypaper to Moonbats

Lileks writes:

This morning I was clicking around, following some links about Wolfowitz’ nomination to the World Bank (mrghmghfm) (surpressing mad laughter) (mrghmghfm) (Sorry, mwa HAHAHAHAHA) and encountered one of those brand-name sites I don’t visit much because the proprietor has nothing to say and no particular skill at saying it. He referred to that “filthy Wolfowitz.”

Do you often come across the word “filthy” applied to many politicians? No. Can you recall which group, in the last, oh, 60 years, got tarred with that word most frequently? Just curious. If the word rings no bells for you, then I’m overreacting. Obviously rung no bells for the author. I expect he will be equally unaffected if Trent Lott refers to “that uppity Rev. Jackson.”

Well, it rang a few bells for me. Not that I'm anybody in particular. I'm just sayin' is all.

But I'm not surprised to learn that there are those on the left responding this way to Wolfowitz's nomination. Frankly, when I heard who Bush nominated, my first reaction was "What a brazen thing to do!" Or to borrow a phrase from Peggy Noonan, "He's got two of 'em."

My second reaction was "This is going to send the moonbats 'round the bend."

And which moonbat in particular was Lileks reading when he came across that phrase? He's not going to get a link from me, so you'll have to do some research. Here, let me help.

Posted by Drew at 06:50 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 14, 2005

How Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth

Tim Challies is not kind to Blog. No, not kind at all.

As I read Blog, I was continually struck by how self-serving the book seemed. It struck me as being almost like the biography of a proud, self-made billionaire, except with site traffic and recognition in place of dollars and European models. If you do not know how many visits Hugh has to his blog in an average day, a busy day or an election day, you will before you have finished the book. You will know how many blogs have been started because of his influence and just how useful a link from his blog to yours can be. I came to realize, though, that in a sense the blogosphere is built on just this sort of self-importance. Bloggers succeed by driving visitors to their sites by whatever means possible. The most important person in the blogosphere is the one with the greatest readership, just like the most important person in my hometown is the one with the most money. And lest I sound hypocritical, I will admit that I have a blog of my own and that I have no right to cast the first stone.

But it's not all bad . . .

This book has much to say that is valuable, especially in regards to the importance of trust and the application of blogging to corporations and organizations. Unfortunately, I found it frantically-written and poorly-organized. I wanted to love it, but in the end just could not. Yet I still do give recommend it, especially to those in positions of leadership. Its alarmist tone may convince some of the value of blogging, but I suspect just as many others will be put-off. I agree with Hewitt that the blogosphere is giving individuals power in the marketplace of ideas and agree that this is generally a good thing. I think there is great future for the blogosphere.

Go here for the whole review.

Posted by Drew at 10:27 PM | Comments (2)

Ashley Smith tells her story

Unlike Matt, I guess I've been living under that proverbial rock. But here's Ashley Smith's story in her own words. Fascinating.

I asked him if -- I told him that I was supposed to go see my little girl the next morning. And I asked him if I could go see her. And he told me no.

My husband died four years ago. And I told him that if he hurt me, my little girl wouldn't have a mommy or a daddy. And she was expecting to see me the next morning. That if he didn't let me go, she would be really upset.

He still told me no.

But I could kind of feel that he started to -- to know who I was. He said, maybe. Maybe I'll let you go -- just maybe. We'll see how things go.

We went to my room. And I asked him if I could read.

He said, "What do you want to read?"

"Well, I have a book in my room." So I went and got it. I got my Bible. And I got a book called "The Purpose-Driven Life."

I turned it to the chapter that I was on that day. It was chapter 33. And I started to read the first paragraph of it. After I read it, he said, "Stop, will you read it again?"

I said, "Yeah. I'll read it again."

So I read it again to him.

It mentioned something about what you thought you're purpose in life was. What were you -- what talents were you give? What gifts were you given to use?

And I asked him what he thought. And he said, "I think it was to talk to people and tell them about you."

I basically just talked to him and tried to gain his trust. I wanted to leave to go see my daughter. That was really important. I didn't want him to hurt anybody else.

Go here for the whole story.

Posted by Drew at 10:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Who Would Jesus Dismiss?

(Hat Tip: Brainpost)

You may not have heard that a professor was recently fired from the University of Colorado for his controversial viewpoint. No, I'm not talking about Ward Churchill -- he's still there. I'm talking about Phil Mitchell, a professor in the history department.

According to Family News in Focus, Mitchell lost his teaching position for assigning a history class to read Charles Sheldon's In His Steps -- the book that asks the question "What Would Jesus Do," the phrase that launched a thousand marketing gimmicks.

Mitchell said he was immediately terminated when one student complained to the history department about the assignment.

"I called the director of my program on Monday morning," Mitchell explained, "and he confirmed that the department was going to let me teach one more year and then I would no longer be permitted to teach history at the University of Colorado."

When asked about Mitchell, a secretary in the history department—who asked that she not be identified—angrily responded, "We don't let him teach here."

This isn't the first time Mitchell, who has taught at CU for more than 20 years, has taken heat for using conservative sources in his classes. He said that when he quoted from Thomas Sowell, a conservative black commentator, the department head berated him and called him a racist.

Now I'm not exactly sure why one would assign In His Steps in a history class, but I might make a guess or two. The message of the book -- "What Would Jesus Do?" -- is certainly a timeless one, but the book itself is locked to a particular era in U.S. history. Written around the turn of the last century, one can connect In His Steps to a period of religious revival -- what some might consider the nation's third "Great Awakening." Christians began to emphasize the sins of society. There were temperance movements calling for the prohibition of alcohol, and poverty was seen less as a personal problem and more of a societal failure. This religious revival probably resulted in a political revival that led to FDR's "New Deal," and other social programs that are still with us today, even while their religious roots have been lost in time.

In His Steps certainly touches on the problems of turn-of-the-century America, even as its wide cast of characters seek their own personal revivals by trying to do what Jesus would have done. But though the message is timeless, I might suggest that the book itself is not. When I read it a few years ago, I found it difficult to relate to the struggles of the book's characters. One, a newspaper publisher, rethinks his newspaper's decision to run stories about boxing matches. He believes that people should not be reading about such things and so excises them from his newspaper. Later he decides that people should not be reading newspapers at all on Sundays, "the one day in the week which ought be given up to something better and holier," though it costs him advertisers and subscribers.

This isn't exactly a modern moral dilemma, which might explain why Sheldon's great-grandson decided to write an updated version a few years ago.

Meanwhile, back to Phil Mitchell.

The timing of the controversy is especially odd, considering how the campus has rallied around Churchill.

"I think it's interesting," Mitchell said. "People are marching for Ward's academic freedom, and I think—to a point—that's legitimate. I just wish somebody would march for mine. I don't have any."

I could see assigning In His Steps in a history class if one is discussing the social and political issues at the time the book was written, particularly as they relate to religious revivals which are certainly a historical reality. I have no idea if that was the context in which the book was presented.

I would love to know more about this story.

Posted by Drew at 09:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 12, 2005

"Million Dollar" review

Ruth, a quadriplegic, and Meredith, her personal aide, head off to see the controversial hit movie "Million Dollar Baby."

For the two of us, going to a movie requires planning. It's hard to be spontaneous when you're in a wheelchair, or trudging along beside one. But nothing was going to keep us from judging Clint Eastwood's controversial new movie for ourselves.

Their recounting of their experience is warm and amusing, but with (obviously) very painful and personal insights into the issues that surround the film. Here are two spirited ladies not afraid to tell you that they both declared the film "able-ist crap." (And if you haven't seen it, and wish to remain spoiler-free, you might want to skip this entry.)

Meredith: We go on about Million Dollar Baby for days and that's when I realize that for all its problems (e.g., the musical score is puerile), I've seen an important movie during this year's Lent. I don't want people to boycott this film. I want them to see it even though -- and perhaps because -- they know the ending. And then, I want them to get angry, not at God, but about flaws in the structural apparatus of faith (i.e., religion) that would make assisted suicide seem an appropriate response instead of becoming a living witness to suffering. I want viewers to wonder why the character of Maggie Fitzgerald has the determination to become a prize fighter but not enough spiritual strength to manage life as a quadriplegic. I especially want Christians to remember that throughout our history, the Spirit has lived large and worked well within broken bodies; something to ponder as we come to the Cross during this holy season.

Ruth: It took nearly a decade for me to arrive at a place of acceptance. I've chosen life, believing that it's not my place to decide to die because life is too difficult, inconvenient, or no longer to my liking. Some may feel the choice to commit suicide is a form of ultimate freedom. What I know is that by surrendering my option to play God, I've lived long enough to learn that a life of dignity, usefulness, and hope is possible for a quadriplegic. If only the character in Million Dollar Baby could've stayed in the ring of life long enough to discover this for herself.

Go here for the whole article.

(Hat tip: The Dawn Patrol)

Posted by Drew at 01:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 11, 2005

Another Geek Moment

I was going to suggest that Bill Wallo is thinking far too deeply about a film series that has turned out to be far more shallow than I expected.

But then I thought, heck, this is a worthwhile discussion after all.

How will Lucas choose to depict Anakin’s descent? Will it be inevitable - will it be his “destiny?” Is he part of some sort of obligatory sea change in the Force from light to dark? Is the portrayal a positive one or a negative one? By and large, Anakin has been portrayed as an impetuous but well-meaning youth up to this point. Will there be something in Revenge of the Sith to excuse Anakin’s fall from grace, or will it truly be characterized as the “wrong” choice? These are questions for which I as of yet have no answers, but which I think are far more important in terms of understanding the Star Wars universe than that the finale will be “dark.”

I wrote it all off as pointless the moment that Liam Neeson uttered the word "mitichloridans" (or whatever) and the Force stopped being a philosophy and became a matter of genetics.

Er, . . . the geeks will know what I mean by that.

Still, as disappointed as I've been in Star Wars, I am interested in seeing how the prequel trilogy is concluded. And Bill raises some interesting questions.

Meanwhile, Bill, I do recommend Battlestar Galactica, which you also mentioned. Lots of food for thought there.

Though if anyone watched last week's episode, and didn't heed my warning that it's not suitable for children, I hope you didn't have to try to explain to the kids what Dr. Baltar was doing all alone in his lab with his pants down.

Posted by Drew at 08:29 PM | Comments (0)

Michael Schiavo rejects offer of $1 million

Earlier today, World Magazine reported that an American businessman named Robert Herring had offered Michael Schiavo $1 million if he would end his pursuit to starve his disabled wife to death. (Note the headline on the BBC link, erroneously calling this a "coma case." Sigh.)

The $1m offer expires on Monday, 14 March, four days before Mrs Schiavo's feeding-tube is due to be removed. Under the offer, Mr Schiavo would hand over his rights to decide his wife's future to her parents.

Mr Herring, who founded an electronics firm and later a satellite channel, said he was moved to act after following the legal battle and realising that time was running out for Mrs Schiavo.

As a supporter of stem cell research, he said he believed that there was hope of a medical cure.

He said he was a "neutral party", insisting he had no connections with the woman's parents, husband or any organisation involved in the case.

"I believe very strongly that there are medical advances happening around the globe that very shortly could have a positive impact on Terri's condition," he said.

"I have seen miraculous recoveries occur through the use of stem cells in patients suffering a variety of conditions.

"With a date of March 18th quickly approaching, and no other viable hope for Terri to be able to keep her feeding tube, I felt compelled to act."

In a follow-up posting, World Mag reports that Michael Schiavo has rejected the offer.

Terri's family members said the offer was "incredible," but were not surprised Schiavo didn't take it. "After he has denied Terri therapy for so many years and denied our family any opportunity to help her, we can only come to the conclusion that he is not comfortable with the prospects of her regaining her abilities to speak and communicate to us the reasons for her condition," they said in a statement.

I'm inclined to agree. Since the man has obviously moved on with his life, fathering two children by another woman, one wonders why he pursues Terri's death so doggedly.

Posted by Drew at 06:27 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

March 08, 2005

Neither New nor Improved

Well, he edited out the lies about James Watt, but Bill Moyers is still shopping this shrill piece of moonbattery around.

Here are my comments regarding this article when it appeared in the Mpls. Star-Tribune.

Posted by Drew at 11:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

But I don't think my wife would go for it.

An intriguing business plan.

(Hat tip: Blogizdat)

Posted by Drew at 11:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

War and Bleach

Greg Wallace says that this is Bleach's best record ever. (Another review here.)

I hope to find out soon enough.

I've been enjoying Bleach's music for many years. Though Bleach hasn't jumped on the "Let's Put Out a Praise and Worship Record!" bandwagon like so many others artists have done in the last decade, I think they've had a number of incredibly worshipful songs. (For an emo-geek-rock band anyway.) Their 1999 self-titled CD (their third) was much maligned, but it's always been in regular rotation in my CD player. "All That's Sweet," "All to You," and "Good" are outstanding expressions of worship -- the last two in particular could and should be Praise and Worship standards by now.

But I digress.

In searching for a review of the new CD, "Farewell Old Friends," I came across this interview from September of 2003, done upon the relase of their previous CD, "Astronomy." (Second favorite of mine.)

In the liner notes for "Astronomy," the band notes that the brother of band members Jared and Milam Byers, was killed in Fallujah in July of 2003. In the interview linked above, Jared and Milam share a bit about their brother, Captain Josh Byers, and his thoughts on our military actions in Iraq.

Do you remember the last time you spoke to Josh?

Milam: Yeah, it was April 2, the night before he flew to Iraq. He called all of us as a family to say goodbye. That was a hard thing. When your brother goes to war, all you can think about is, "Will I ever talk to him again?" He also wrote us every week or two, so we have letters that will just forever be special. My parents got a letter he wrote the day before he was killed. It's just amazing, because in the letter he talks about how our security is not in our circumstances but in God and a great faith-words that mean so much now, you know?

Obviously, Josh might still be alive today if not for the war in Iraq. Do you think his death was a necessary part of a necessary war?

Milam: Yes, because he believed it. For me to think any different would mean that he died in vain. Before he left for Iraq, he said, "The reasons I'm going is not the things you hear on CNN. It's not about oil, it's not about policing the world, it's not about weapons of mass destruction. It's about freedom. It's about us wanting to afford these innocent people a freedom that we Americans enjoy, and it's about people like Saddam not being able to bully the world around and kill innocent people anymore." That's what it was about. It wasn't any of that political propaganda bull that we're flooded with. It was about him wanting to free those people and genuinely caring for those people.

Jared: Josh was fighting to free those people and to free our country from terrorism. Josh believed in what he was doing, and I did too. I know why he was over there, and I know what he believed in. He felt it was a necessary cause, so I do too. I hate the war; nobody wants war. But I know that Josh believed he was there for a good cause.

Here is a military family who has lost a son and a brother. Anyone would understand if they reacted strongly against the war and against the administration that sent him there. But they don't. And this scenario is repeated countless times among countless military families. I'd like to think that I would continue to support our military presence in Iraq if such a tragedy would affect my family, but I fear that I might become bitter instead.

"Understand there are reasons beyond ours," goes a line from the title track of "Astronomy."

I don't know how they do it.

If "Farewell Old Friends" is, indeed, the final album from Bleach, I'm going to miss them. But these guys miss their brother every day.

Posted by Drew at 11:07 PM | Comments (0)

Technology creates strange alliances

(Hat tip: World Magazine Blog)

LifeNews.com reports on an unusual bill introduced in the Maine legislature that would outlaw abortions of gay fetuses. The article points out that the bill has the support of a national gay-lesbian pro-life group. Of course, I would assume that any anti-abortion legislation would have the support of any pro-life group.

What I find particularly unusual is that the bill is based on the notion that the mythical "gay gene" may one day be discovered, and as a result, parents may choose to abort an unborn child who is discovered to have that gene.

State Rep. Brian Duprey of Maine has introduced legislation to prohibit abortions on unborn children who are gay. The measure has raised eyebrows and generated debate whether or not genetics has any bearing on someone's sexuality.

The Pro-life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians says it supports the bill.

"We recognize that at this time the gay gene has not been isolated, but with all the advances of genetics we believe that it may just be a matter of time" said Jackie Malone, executive vice president of PLAGAL.

Malone's group contends that homosexuality may not be a matter of preference or choice, but could be controlled by a person's genetic makeup. If a so-called "gay gene"is discovered and could be determined during a pregnancy, it could lead to abortions, PLAGAL believes.

"Abortion tries to get rid of real human beings who are threatening or undesirable," says Cecilia Brown, president of PLAGAL. "Children are routinely aborted now because of gender or disability. It is not inconceivable to see people aborting because of a possible gay gene."

May I assume that heterosexual fetuses could still be aborted?

(If you think China's "one child" policy that has resulted in more female children being aborted will create problems in the future, imagine what could happen with this! The mind boggles!)

Even more interestingly, Rep. Brian Duprey, who introduced the legislation, said he was inspired by a comment made by Rush Limbaugh.

Last month, Duprey told the Portland Press Herald newspaper that listening to the Rush Limbaugh show gave him the idea for the bill. Limbaugh had commented that if scientists ever discovered a gene that caused a person to be gay, then homosexual activists would become pro-life "overnight."

I've heard this sort of comment before -- not sure if it was Limbaugh or someone else -- but I think it's accurate. And science is continually challenging those who insist that an unborn child is a mere "tissue mass."

Jonah Goldberg actually wrote about this bill last month. I missed it at the time. But he also makes a good point about how the discovery of a "gay gene" would affect not just pro-life gays and lesbians, but perhaps alter the thinking of all who identify themselves as homosexual.

Just imagine, for the sake of argument, that Rep. Duprey is right — that sometime in the near future women will be able to abort their pregnancies solely to avoid giving birth to a gay kid. Would this increase the number of pro-life gays and put pressure on the political alliance between gay groups and pro-abortion groups? Probably (although there are significant numbers of pro-life gays and lesbians already).

Nothing sharpens a man's mind as much as knowing he'll be hanged in the morning, as the saying goes. Likewise, one may assume without fear of much contradiction that homosexuals would greet the prospect of the quiet annihilation of their culture with a special revulsion they do not (for the most part) reserve for the consequences of abortion generally.

Posted by Drew at 10:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 02, 2005

Welcoming Ward to Wisconsin

Sean at "The American Mind" has photos of the competing demonstrations surrounding Ward Churchill's appearance at UW-Whitewater. (That would be both the "Capitalism is Terrorism" protesters, and the "Remember the 9/11 Victims" demonstrators.)

Sean adds his own thoughts here.

Jib of Jiblog also has quite a few pictures and more commentary. And a picture of someone who decided that this would be the most opportune moment to announce her sexual orientation.

UW-Whitewater's excuse seems to be that this is a free speech issue. No one is disputing that Churchill should be free to espouse whatever loony claims he wants. We just don't think he should be subsidized by taxpayers for it.

If you're an alumnus of the UW system -- UW-Whitewater in particular -- you might want to explain it to the person who calls every year asking for a donation.

Posted by Drew at 06:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 23, 2005

What the heck does "heteronormative" mean?

Posted by Drew at 07:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 22, 2005

Battlestar Galactica offers a surprising faith challenge

Yesterday I mentioned the blog maintained by Battlestar Galactica producer Ron Moore. On it, he'll respond to fan questions about the show. Moore used to do this on AOL's "Star Trek" forum back when he was one of the producers on "Deep Space Nine," so I'm not surprised to see him doing it again.

Here's one question posed to Moore that I find rather curious.

"The question I would really like to see addressed is how to reconcile the underlying quest of Battlestar Galactica with actual scientific plausiability. The quest of Battlestar Galactica is to find Earth, the 13th Colony. However, it is a basic and well-substantiated tenet of science that human life here on Earth evolved slowly from a primate ancestor. Attempts to deny evolution based on the notion that human kind deserves a far more worthy origin than what evolution details, are a diservice to the pursuit of scientific truth and endeavors in our own world. There was always that reactionary sense to the original series, which drove it away from a secure standing as *science* fiction. How will the new series avoid this pitfall?"

(Here's where William Shatner steps in and says "Get a life!")

Okay, since Battlestar Galactica suggests that the origin of life on earth is found in outer space, not only does it run counter to evolutionary theory, but it runs counter to the Christian teachings on the origins of life. So neither of the competing theories is supported by the show.

But as a Christian I'm not offended at all.

Maybe it's because I'm used to the way science fiction assumes that God is a myth. Maybe it's because I've heard Captain Picard announce once too often that humanity has outgrown the need for God, or I'm no longer surprised when Q whisks us back in time to watch life spring up from the primordial ooze.

And maybe it doesn't bother me because . . . it's fiction!

But I find it interesting that someone is seriously bothered that a fictional television show might not support the theory of evolution. Every day I encounter challenges to my faith in the entertainment industry. Yet my faith suffers not. How strong is this viewer's faith in evolution if a fictional television show causes such a crisis?

Moore's response should cheer him:

I don't have a direct answer for this question yet. There are a couple of notions rolling around in my head as to how we reconcile the very real fact of evolution with the Galactica mythos, but I haven't decided which approach to take. However, it was a fundamental element of the orginal Galactica mythos that "Life here began out there..." and I decided early on that it was crucial to maintain it.

"The very real fact of evolution."

Don't worry, little fanboy. The producer is on your side.

Posted by Drew at 11:09 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

The Importance of Homeland Security in Flyover Country

When homeland security emerged as a major issue in the election -- and a major reason George Bush was re-elected -- New Yorkers whined that red staters have no right to declare homeland security their issue because the red states weren't attacked by terrorists. Al-Qaeda, they argued, targeted New York and Washington, not the Amana Colonies.

Today in the Wall Street Journal, Brendan Miniter explains why homeland security spending is just as important for New York as it is for New Ulm, and consequently, why homeland defense is a nationwide issue, not just an issue for blue-state cities on the east and west coast.

From New York City much of America may look like a collection of cow towns. But rural Homeland Security spending is here to stay, and we are lucky it is. Just because al Qaeda targets big cities doesn't mean that's their operatives aren't living in the heartland awaiting the opportunity to strike. To catch them, we have to go on the offensive by giving first responders around the nation the equipment and the training necessary to spot and kill or capture terrorists. We also must imbue in them a sense that in this war, we are all on the front lines. Thwarting the next attack likely depends on the actions of an alert sheriff's deputy or border agent well outside of Los Angeles or New York.

We saw this in late 1999, when an alert border agent in Port Angeles, Wash. -- population 18,000 -- unraveled the so-called Millennium Plot. Ahmed Ressam tried to cross the border from Canada with more than 100 pounds of explosives in his car. Likewise, Zacarias Moussaoui -- now on trial for his alleged involvement in the 9/11 plot -- was picked up not in Los Angleles or New York, but in Minnesota, where he was taking flight lessons.

Many Americans probably don't realize that the North Star State's large Muslim refugee population and its proximity to Canada make it an attractive place for militant Islamists. That's one reason why Coleen Rowley, chief legal advisor in the FBI's field office there at the time, was alert enough in August 2001 to realize Moussaoui might be part of a larger plot to attack the United States after he was discovered taking flight lessons in Eagan, Minn.

Posted by Drew at 10:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 21, 2005

I'm rooting for the polytheists

I've mentioned a couple times over at Darn Floor that I am enjoying the new Battlestar Galactica series. It's definitely a post-9/11 drama, showing us a military and civilian population in the aftermath of a sneak-attack that wipes out all of humanity, save 50,000 survivors. Unlike the 70s-era "Battlestar Galactica," this is a grown-up show. It's dark, gritty, occasionally violent, and has quite a bit of sex. (Watch it after the kids are in bed.) But it's more than just a good Sci Fi show . . . it's good drama, with the sort of continuing plotlines designed to hook viewers like me. Plus it's got Mary McDonnell, who is fantastic.

After watching last Friday's episode, I didn't quite know how to react. The Cylon Sex-bot character has talked about God in previous episodes, but never quite so . . . "evangelically" as she did in this latest episode.

I remembered reading on producer Ron Moore's blog that he decided to make the Cylons monotheistic and play up the religion angle to go along with the "Cylons as Al-Qaeda" theme. But he's made the good guys polytheistic and the bad guys monotheistic. Given that my sympathies weigh heavily toward the monotheistic point of view, this is an odd thing to wrap my brain around.

Sandy's got more at the new MAWB Squad blog. She points out that not only are the Cylons monotheistic, but they use the sort of lingo common to Christianity, and detects a hint of the oft-heard refrain that Christian fundamentalists are no different than Islamic jihadists.

Like Sandy, I've grown accustomed to the often negative way Christianity is depicted in science fiction, but this a new twist, and I will be interested in seeing where this is going.

Posted by Drew at 11:37 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

February 17, 2005

Dispatches from Glass Houses

James Taranto's "Best of the Web" today points to blogger David M's piece pondering the identity of the person who wrote Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial on the Eason Jordan "kerfuffle." (The word "kerfuffle" being a big clue, apparently.)

I've made no secret about being freaked out lately by the power of the blogosphere, particularly as it pertains to the Eason Jordan incident, but Taranto responds in such a dismissive, condescending manner that . . . well, it wouldn't surprise me to see Taranto in the blogosphere's crosshairs soon (if he's not already.)

David forwarded us his blog entry, asking if we did indeed write the editorial. That is a question we cannot answer, for Journal policy is to keep the authorship of editorials confidential. An exception is made when editorial writers are nominated for prizes--which means that bloggers who wish to learn who wrote this editorial should be rooting for the author to win a Pulitzer.

Isn't this a perfect example of how bloggers are amateurs (amateur: "one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession")? If David enjoys puzzling over the authorship of newspaper editorials, more power to him--but it's hard to imagine anyone making a living that way.

There's also something sweet in how the bloggers have taken such offense at the editorial. Rather than bask in their victory, they are focused on letting the world know how much they crave the approval of the big boys at the Journal.

Perhaps Taranto hasn't noticed, but his "Best of the Web" is essentially a blog, pointing out newsbits from across the web and commenting on them. The only difference is that Taranto gets paid to write his blog while the "amateurs" he sniffs at do not.

WSJ's Peggy Noonan, on the other hand, gets it.

Posted by Drew at 05:02 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 14, 2005

How "transformed" are we?

Ten years ago, Mark Noll wrote The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, asserting that "notwithstanding all their other virtues, . . . American evangelicals are not exemplary for their thinking." Now comes Ron Sider's The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, which asserts that we evangelicals aren't exemplary for our virtues, either.

In the latest issue of Christianity Today's Books and Culture (a fantastic bi-monthy that should appeal to any thinking Christian) Ron Sider writes what must be a sort of condensation of the conclusions of his book. It's loaded with statistics, but if these statistics are reflective of the truth about Evangelical Christians, then we must face up to a sobering truth -- we do not live like people whose lives have been transformed by Christ. In fact, on the whole we're not much different than those whose lives we would say need transforming.

The findings in numerous national polls conducted by highly respected pollsters like The Gallup Organization and The Barna Group are simply shocking. "Gallup and Barna," laments evangelical theologian Michael Horton, "hand us survey after survey demonstrating that evangelical Christians are as likely to embrace lifestyles every bit as hedonistic, materialistic, self-centered, and sexually immoral as the world in general." Divorce is more common among "born-again" Christians than in the general American population. Only 6 percent of evangelicals tithe. White evangelicals are the most likely people to object to neighbors of another race. Josh McDowell has pointed out that the sexual promiscuity of evangelical youth is only a little less outrageous than that of their nonevangelical peers.

Alan Wolfe, famous contemporary scholar and director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life, has just published a penetrating study of American religious life. Evangelicals figure prominently in his book. His evaluation? Today's evangelicalism, Wolfe says, exhibits "so strong a desire to copy the culture of hotel chains and popular music that it loses what religious distinctiveness it once had." Wolfe argues, "The truth is there is increasingly little difference between an essentially secular activity like the popular entertainment industry and the bring-'em-in-at-any-cost efforts of evangelical megachurches." It is not surprising that George Barna concludes, "Every day, the church is becoming more like the world it allegedly seeks to change." We have very little time, he believes, to reverse these trends. African Christian and famous missions scholar Professor Lamin Sanneh told Christianity Today recently that "the cultural captivity of Christianity in the West is nearly complete, and with the religion tamed, it is open season on the West's Christian heritage. I worry about a West without a moral center facing a politically resurgent Islam."

Sider quickly points out that our first concern "must be internal integrity, not external danger." (Although, to phrase that last statement another way, there should be some concern whether an America with no moral foundation can face an enemy with a strong foundation of anti-Americanism.)

In the article, Sider cites a series of statistics that should be cause for self-examination in the church, if not a call for outright reform.

In a 1999 national survey, George Barna found that the percentage of born-again Christians who had experienced divorce was slightly higher (26 percent) than that of non-Christians (22 percent). In Barna's polls since the mid-1990s, that number has remained about the same. In August 2001, a new poll found that the divorce rate was about the same for born-again Christians and the population as a whole; 33 percent of all born-again Christians had been divorced compared with 34 percent of non-born-again Americans — a statistically insignificant difference. Barna also found in one study that 90 percent of all divorced born-again folk divorced after they accepted Christ.

. . .

John and Sylvia Ronsvalle have been carefully analyzing the giving patterns of American Christians for well over a decade. Their annual The State of Christian Giving is the most accurate report for learning how much Christians in the richest nation in human history actually give. In their most recent edition, they provide detailed information about per-member giving patterns of U.S. church members from 1968 to 2001. Over those thirty-plus years, of course, the average income of U.S. Christians has increased enormously. But that did not carry over into their giving. The report showed that the richer we become, the less we give in proportion to our incomes. In 1968, the average church member gave 3.1 percent of their income—less than a third of a tithe. That figure dropped every year through 1990 and then recovered slightly to 2.66 percent—about one quarter of a tithe.

. . .

Popular evangelical speaker Josh McDowell has been observing and speaking to evangelical youth for several decades. I remember him saying years ago that evangelical youth are only about 10 percent less likely to engage in premarital sex than nonevangelicals.

True Love Waits, a program sponsored by the Southern Baptist Convention, is one of the most famous evangelical efforts to reduce premarital sexual activity among our youth. Since 1993, about 2.4 million young people have signed a pledge to wait until marriage to engage in sexual intercourse. Are these young evangelicals keeping their pledges? In March 2004, researchers from Columbia University and Yale University reported on their findings. For seven years they studied 12 thousand teenagers who took the pledge. Sadly, they found that 88 percent of these pledgers reported having sexual intercourse before marriage; just 12 percent kept their promise. The researchers also found that the rates for having sexually transmitted diseases "were almost identical for the teenagers who took pledges and those who did not."

Read the whole article here.

Sider is the president and founder of Evangelicals for Social Action and a professor of theology and culture at Eastern Baptist Theolgical Seminary. A lot of people would call Sider a "liberal," including Tony Campolo, perhaps the poster boy for liberal Christians. But I don't know if Sider is that easy to nail down.

Here's an article in Christianity Today on Sider -- from 1992, I'll grant you, and people certainly change over time -- but it may be a good starting point.

Here's an interview with Sider regarding the "Evangelical Agenda" for Bush's second term.

I haven't had the time to read either of these two articles yet, but plan to soon.

In the meantime, I think I'll pick up Sider's new book. If even half of what he says is true, then all of us need to pay attention.

Posted by Drew at 10:42 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

February 10, 2005

Eden cast out

The New York Observer has the full story of Dawn Eden's firing from the New York Post, officially for blogging on company time, but coming right after an incident where she was criticized for "inserting a pro-life viewpoint" into an article she was copyediting. Dawn corrects a few of the story's errors at her own blog, but otherwise says

"But overall, I'm elated. Gurley set out to draw a portrait that would--as with all his work--go deeper than the average personality profile, and he's unquestionably succeeded."

So what happened? Here's an excerpt from the Observer piece.

Ms. Eden was given a story by Post reporter Susan Edelman to copy-edit. The story was about women with terminal cancer who want to have babies: Through in-vitro fertilization, multiple embryos are fertilized and implanted one at a time until as many as 12 survive.

According to Ms. Eden, she was repelled by what she interpreted as a "cavalier" attitude about the embryos in Ms. Edelman’s story: "Treating them as a manufactured commodity that don’t have significance as human life," Ms. Eden said. (Ms. Edelman declined to comment when reached by The Observer.)

"I got choked up," Ms. Eden said. "How are people going to ever understand the complex issues involved here, if the story they’re reading reduces it to ‘Oh, isn’t this nice? We can just make lots of embryos and not worry about whether they live or die.’"

Ms. Eden read a line in the draft of the story: "Experts have ethical qualms about this ‘Russian roulette’ path to parenthood." She saw her opportunity: She added a phrase: " … which, when in-vitro fertilization is involved, routinely results in the destruction of embryos." And where Ms. Edelman had written that one woman had three embryos implanted "and two took," Ms. Eden changed that to read: "One died. Two took."

Ms. Eden said she thought she was performing a service for the reader, since she believed that the Post had been "notoriously oblivious" to the nuances involving embryonic life.

After publication of the article, Eden wrote to Susan Edelman, apologizing for what she'd done, and calling her actions "unwarranted and wrong." Edelman wrote back, using the word "sabotage" to describe the editing, and calling Eden "unprofessional" and "a disgrace."

Then the Post editors discovered Ms. Eden's blog, and found it "very disturbing." Officially, Eden was fired for blogging on company time. Unofficially? . . .

The Post hired her full time in 2003. She loved editing and writing punning headlines. But she landed in hot water after giving an interview to Gilbert, a G.K Chesterton magazine, in which she talked about her faith and working at the Post.

She said her boss, chief copy editor Barry Gross, chided her, telling her, "Some people already think the Post is conservative, and we don’t need New York readers also thinking it’s a Christian paper and that there are Christians working there."

"I don’t recall saying that," said Mr. Gross. "But I can’t swear that I didn’t. I mean, there’s no question people think we’re conservative." He added that he did caution her to cool it a bit in the future.

There was another chat with Mr. Gross after Ms. Eden resisted working on an article about a murdered porn star. She’d made it clear that she was disgusted with the cheerful, lurid commentary.

So according to Eden, the Post found her viewpoint problematic prior to this latest incident.

We may never know the true motives behind her firing -- whether it was merely for blogging on company time, or for holding a viewpoint that the editors found incompatible with their own.

But the profile of Ms. Eden is, indeed, a good look at a modern Christian who shatters the usual stereotypes. Click and enjoy.

(Hat tip: GetReligion)

Posted by Drew at 10:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 07, 2005

Intelligent Design -- The Sternberg Controversy

A little over a week ago, there was a bit of a blogswarm around this editorial in Opinion Journal regarding biologist Richard von Sternberg. The article noted that von Sternberg's career was in jeopardy because he published a peer-reviewed article on intelligent design in the August issue of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. I wrote about it here.

It must be noted that the article, titled "The Branding of a Heretic," was an editorial in Opinion Journal. And because it was an editorial, we probably shouldn't have expected to get both sides of the story.

Jonathan Coddington, von Sternberg's supervisor at the National Museum of Natural History, responded to the editorial over at my other blog, here, correcting what he saw as errors in the Opinion Journal piece.

Today I discovered Richard von Sternberg's own website through the Grapevine blog. On it he discusses the whole controversy surrounding the publication of the article on intelligent design. The page is dated from September, but like Coddington's response, it sheds more light on the situation.

I suspect there's more to come on this incident as ID is suddenly becoming a hot topic.

Stay tuned.

Posted by Drew at 09:16 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

February 04, 2005

More on Film and Faith

An entry which I posted here and at Darn Floor, seems to have generated a lot of response (relatively speaking), and drawn my attention to some great resources.

Blue Goldfish linked to the original post, and added a couple of his own on the subject.

He also links to Gideon Strauss, who along with his own suggestions for films fit for discussion, pointed out this excellent resource which has lists of discussion questions for a number of great movies. See, for example, this discussion guide for "Crimes and Misdemeanors," one film I definitely want to have included in the discussion group.

Matt also links to some excellent resources below.

Thanks for the resources and film suggestions, folks. Keep 'em coming.

Posted by Drew at 07:55 PM | Comments (0)

February 03, 2005

"And when I say that the groundhog is Jesus, I say that with great respect."

Do you suppose that video rental places experience a one-day run on the Bill Murray movie "Groundhog Day" each February 2nd? I haven't seen the movie in years, but after reading what Jonah Goldberg has to say about it, I think I need to watch it again.

When the Museum of Modern Art in New York debuted a film series on "The Hidden God: Film and Faith" two years ago, it opened with Groundhog Day. The rest of the films were drawn from the ranks of turgid and bleak intellectual cinema, including standards from Ingmar Bergman and Roberto Rossellini. According to the New York Times, curators of the series were stunned to discover that so many of the 35 leading literary and religious scholars who had been polled to pick the series entries had chosen Groundhog Day that a spat had broken out among the scholars over who would get to write about the film for the catalogue. In a wonderful essay for the Christian magazine Touchstone, theology professor Michael P. Foley wrote that Groundhog Day is "a stunning allegory of moral, intellectual, and even religious excellence in the face of postmodern decay, a sort of Christian-Aristotelian Pilgrim's Progress for those lost in the contemporary cosmos." Charles Murray, author of Human Accomplishment, has cited Groundhog Day more than once as one of the few cultural achievements of recent times that will be remembered centuries from now. He was quoted in The New Yorker declaring, "It is a brilliant moral fable offering an Aristotelian view of the world."

Oh. Er, . . . geez, I love it when films are all multivalent and stuff, but . . . Groundhog Day?

I know what you're thinking: We're talking about the movie in which Bill Murray tells a big rat sitting on his lap, "Don't drive angry," right? Yep, that's the one. You might like to know that the rodent in question is actually Jesus — at least that's what film historian Michael Bronski told the Times. "The groundhog is clearly the resurrected Christ, the ever-hopeful renewal of life at springtime, at a time of pagan-Christian holidays. And when I say that the groundhog is Jesus, I say that with great respect."

You know, I've had this idea of starting up a film discussion group at my church. Sort of like one of those ubiquitous book clubs, but with movies instead of novels. Film, after all, is simply a modern way of storytelling, and I suspect that people go to more movies each year than they read books. So why not a movie-watching-and-discussion group? The format allows everyone to experience them simultaneously, and because they're short, the viewing and discussion can all take place in the same evening.

So I'm going to try to run a film discussion group, with the idea of discussing movies as both works of art and a presentation of the filmmaker's worldview.

After reading the above, I may have to include "Groundhog Day." If nothing else, I certainly want to see it again now.

But I'd also like some advice. What other films would make for good discussions -- both of the filmmaker's technique, and of the themes? I'm trying to avoid films that everyone will have already seen, or if immensely popular, will have seen recently. I'm also hoping to discuss the thematic elements with regard to the Christian worldview. I'd be interested in hearing your suggestions in the comments below.

Posted by Drew at 12:31 AM | Comments (18)

February 02, 2005

Liberal Christians still too Christian for the Left

I will admit a certain preoccupation lately for the way the media and other lefties depict Christians, although I had previously assumed that they confined their mistreatment to conservative Christians. But it seems that even liberal Christians are heretics to the left-wing gospel. (Hat tip: Blue Goldfish)

Jim Wallis is a Christian, the founder of Sojourners (and editor-in-chief of Sojourners magazine), and holds the sort of political positions that would make Michael Moore proud. Just take a look at this list. Democrats have apparently invited Wallis to help them figure out how to reconnect with the evangelicals in "Jesusland."

So what is it about him that still freaks out lefties? It's that God thing.

Writing in The Nation, columnist Katha Pollitt takes a look at Wallis's recent book God's Politics -- and at Wallis himself.

I admit I approached the book with a bit of an edge, having just seen the new film version of The Merchant of Venice, in which the callous anti-Semitism of the Venetian smart set is rendered with unusual vividness. This led me to further gloomy instances, from the Crusades and the Salem witch trials to the Magdalene laundries and the anti-evolution policies of the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board. After all, the case for Christianizing progressive politics is not just about quoting the Bible more, or framing healthcare as a religious value. It's about lowering the wall between church and state, giving churches more power, more rights and more taxpayer money.

Whoa! I mean, after that opening, is there any reason to read the rest of the column? But, she's just warming up.

The argument in favor often boils down to majority rule--most Americans claim to be devout Christians--but that's actually the argument against it. Look what Christians did when they had the chance! Preventing religious wars and godly tyranny was the original purpose behind the Founding Fathers' ban on the establishment of religion, and subsequent history has hardly outmoded their wisdom.

Okay, this is standard "wall of separation" boilerplate. I'd poke away at it, but I won't because Pollitt piques my interest a few paragraphs later.

Wallis's God calls on Christians to fight racism, poverty, war and violence--what's wrong with mustering support for these worthy goals by presenting them in the language spoken by so many Americans? The trouble is, the other side does that too. You can find anything you want in the Bible--well, almost anything. Thus, the more insistently people bring Christianity into politics, the more political argument becomes a matter of Christian hermeneutics. Does God say gays should be executed or married? "Spare the rod" or "suffer the little children"? I don't see how we benefit as a society from translating politics into theology. We are left with the same debates, and a diminished range of ways in which to think about them. And, of course, a diminished number of voices--because if you're not a believer, you're out of the discussion. In this sense, Wallis's evangelicalism is as much a power play as Pat Robertson's.

She really makes me want to read Wallis's book. I, too, worry about the combination of politics and faith, not because I think Christians shouldn't hold public office or have a voice, but because I think power brings with it strong temptations. I have also known too many people who think that becoming a Christian means becoming a Republican, and vice-versa. This close association can sometimes create a false impression that God is a Republican.

But Pollitt's chief complaint seems to be that, for all of Wallis's liberalism, he fails the one litmus test of the left. He opposes abortion -- and on religious grounds.

Wallis often points out that the Bible mentions poverty thousands of times and abortion only a few. I'm not sure what this tells us--first we eradicate poverty and then we force women to have babies against their will? But in any case, Wallis is wrong: The Bible doesn't mention abortion even once. Wallis cites the text antichoicers commonly use to justify their position: "For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb" (Psalm 139:13). Say what? Nothing about abortion there, pro or con. Nobody who wasn't sure that somewhere in the Bible there must be a proof text against terminating a pregnancy would read that meaning into these words.

That so many Christians are firmly persuaded that the Bible condemns abortion suggests that God's politics tend to be the politics of the people who claim to speak for him.

If Wallis was a non-believing liberal, he might get a pass. But he argues for liberal policies from a Christian worldview, and to Pollitt this makes him no different than conservative Christians who use the same religious framework.

Pollitt would rather have none of this God stuff -- not even if it supports her own politics.

Posted by Drew at 09:32 PM | Comments (3)

February 01, 2005

Moyers has a Meltdown

A couple bloggers alerted me to this recent essay by Bill Moyers which was published in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. In it, Moyers asserts that those crazy Christians are planning to destroy the environment in order to hasten the end of the world and the return of Christ. He's completely convinced of this premise and I don't even know where to begin with this exercise in moonbattery.

But I'll try.

The whole piece is a minefield of stereotyping and bigotry. All that's missing is Moyers presenting a "final solultion" for dealing with Christians. If Moyers was someone the general populace actually listened to, I'd be worried. Moyers is just a pale ghost trying to frighten people with his hysterical moanings, and you can see right through him if you bother to look. But it is worrying enough that the Star Tribune should print this anti-Christian rallying cry.

(Just for fun, count the number of times Moyers presents opinions as facts throughout the piece.)

For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.

What Moyers means is not just that there are Christians holding elected office (and that's scary enough for Moyers) but that there are elected officials that are (gasp!) backed by Christians! This is enough to cause Moyers to wet himself in panic.

Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality.

If we accept Moyers' definitions, then this makes Moyers himself both a theologian and an ideologue, as we shall see.

When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

The biggest danger comes from loony old columnists who are just plain oblivious. But I digress.

Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

Here's the column in Grist to which Moyers refers. It's another helping of fearmongering over creeping fundamentalism. I was planning to blog about it last week, but never got around to it. Thank you Bill Moyers for the reminder that you're not alone in your bigotry.

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true - one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.

That's right - the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the "Left Behind" series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious-right warrior Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.

Moyers acts as if he's just discovered a heretofore unknown people group. I must congratulate him on being able to fool PBS into employing him as a societal commentator for many years without ever letting on how ignorant he is of American society.

By the way, here's the Rapture Index. It looks to be a sort of Eschatological Atomic Clock. Moyers would have you believe that millions of Americans check this website regularly to find out how close we are to Christ's return. And that they destroy the enviroment to move the index ahead.

The Rapture Index looks to be the work of two people.

Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.

As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to Heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.

I'm not making this up.

Yes, Bill. That's one of many different beliefs about how the world will end. If you were honest you point out to your readers that there are other ways of interpreting the Revelation. Your only excuse is that you're just plain ignorant or too lazy to do any research into end-times beliefs. Which label would you prefer: dishonest or ignorant? There are no other options.

By the way, here's George Moonbat's Monbiot's article to which Moyers refers. It's yet another screed about those religious people who are "bonkers" and who apparently set George Bush's middle east policy.

Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption.

Pet peeve: Bill, it's the book of Revelation. Not Revelations. There's just one Revelation, okay? I'd think a guy as smart as you, employed for years by PBS, would know that.

Anyway, note how Bill the armchair anthropologist speaks about "these people." It shouldn't surprise anyone that he singles out Texas. You know, . . . because George Bush is one of them! Booga booga booga! Hide the children!

The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 - just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.

Bill is also pretty ignorant of Google. Bill, here's a hint: you can find support for just about anything on the internet, and Google will happily guide you to the strangest things. Google is pretty cool that way. But just because you find it on the internet, Bill, does not mean that millions of Americans believe it. You can find my blog with Google, but that doesn't mean millions of Americans agree with me about everything written there. (Although they should, shouldn't they?)

For what it's worth, I'd never heard of the "rapture index" until Moyers brought it up, and I mark myself as one of those "crazy" Christians Bill claims follows the index like a pillar of fire. (Note to Bill: that's an Old Testament allusion. You may have heard of the Old Testament. It's in the same Bible where you find the book of Revelation.)

Here's more from the armchair anthropologist again:

One of their texts is a high school history book, "America's Providential History." You'll find there these words: "The secular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie . . . that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth . . . while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."

No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.

It is hard for the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility.

You said it, Bill. I didn't.

Ask yourself: what is the point of Moyers piece? Or to put it another way, as a piece of persuasive writing, of what is this essay trying to persuade people? What is Moyers' solution to this problem? He closes his rant with these words:

The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free - not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need is what the ancient Israelites called hochma - the science of the heart ... the capacity to see, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you.

Believe me, it does.

So what does he mean when he calls on his readers to fight and to act because the future depends on them? What, exactly, does he want his readers to do to preserve the future? The most obvious answer is that he wants them to fight and to act against those people who he sees as enemies of the future -- Christians. And how are they to act against the enemies? Moyers doesn't say. He leaves that up to his readers. Maybe violence is the answer. Maybe they're supposed to enact laws to ensure that Christians are not allowed to hold elected office. Maybe internment camps and such. I don't know, but Bill irresponsibly sounds the alarm anyway.

Ask yourself how this would play if Bill had used the same language to warn everyone that Muslim believers posed a threat to the future. Would the Star-Tribune run it?

Posted by Drew at 06:02 PM | Comments (8)