Two posts. First, Richard Chappell notes:

Some people judge that homosexuality is immoral, because they find it intuitively repugnant. They must also be aware that a few short decades ago people thought that interracial sex was immoral, on the same basis. This suggests that such intuitions provide a very flimsy basis for discrimination. Indeed, I find it completely baffling that homophobic conservatives fail to realize that they are the modern day equivalent of yesterday’s racist conservatives. Why are they not humbled by history? What makes them think that their disgust-based moral intuitions are any more reliable than their grandparents’ were?

There are two aspects to this, one fairly trivial. Mr Chappell goes from “Some people judge … because” to “homophobic conservatives fail … equivalent of yesterdays racist conservatives”. The “some people” goes from an adjectival description that (rightly) describes a small minority, while on the other hand to my reading “homophobic conservatives” is less likely to read as an even smaller subset (those in the “some people” category of before who are also conservative) to a notion that of a notion tarring essentially all conservatives as homophobic.

In the comment trail, Brandon argues for repugnance as a basis for other issues such as incest, which Mr Chappell finds acceptable.  I offer two alternative tests:

 Consider abmnemnopaedophilia, that is hiring young children (from poor family backgrounds) so that one might apply a drug which prevents the creation of long-term memory and then “use them” for the purposes of sexual enjoyment. That is, paying a family to give up their child for a night’s “entertainment” (with material renumeration) along with the application of a drug which prevents the child from having any memory (the next day) of nights events. This, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, should have no issue. That is, no lasting or measurable harm is done, the paedophile gets his “reward”, and the family gets some much needed financial assistance. It would seem that the primary argument against is repugnance (or perhaps virtue ethics).

Consider also the following sort of slave trafficking. In this sort of traffic young orphan girls from third world cities, who have been captured by street elements and sold locally into brothels might then re-acquired into first world, say European or American brothels. In those brothels, these girls are still sexual chattel … but they get better clothes, better food, work more reasonable hours and have a substantially improved lifespan and as well, the third world nation gets an influx of captial. Again a utilitarian can offer no complaint.

I would argue that both of these situations are “intuitively repugnant.” As well, one might be able to hoist reasoned arguments why they are bad, however there also utilitarian reasons why they are “good.” However one might ask those who would support either of the two test cases, “Why are you not humbled by history?” Why do you think your utility-based moral intuitions are reliable? Perhaps instead of proving a reason to doubt “repugnance” might we find instead utility a flimsy basis for ethical decision-making.
Mr Schraub asks:

A new ad out tries to force McCain into that question pro-lifers never want to answer: if abortion should be a crime, how much time should women who have them serve?

[…]

I’ve yet to hear a coherent justification (at least, one that isn’t nakedly paternalistic — e.g., women are irrational creatures controlled by their emotions, so they can’t be punished) for why abortion can be outlawed (as murder), but the murderers should get off scot-free. I suppose if someone doesn’t think abortion is murder, but still can come up with a reason for it to barred, they could dodge out of this, but the few arguments I’ve heard on those lines are also pretty paternalistic (it’s a serious decision, and we can’t know if you’re taking it seriously enough unless you’re willing to prove it somehow to the state).

A counter question that “pro-abortion proponents” never want to answer (or offer coherent justification) for is why they are for regulation (are paternalistic?) on virtually every other phase of life/issue, e.g., gun ownership, seat belts, hay rides, retirement, school regulation, and so on …  but when it comes to killing the fetus brook no regulation or oversight at all. Paternalism per se is not a thing from which the left shirks … except in the case of abortion. The “pro-abortion” proponents also fail to offer “a coherent justification” for the notion that the pater, i.e., father, has any rights at all in this matter, which is unfortunate.
Now, the argument for regulation of abortion that I’ve made is not, I think, paternalistic (that is based on the idea that the state is wise but women are “irrational creatures”) but motivated instead by the idea that virtue is the path to happiness and that providing an environment in which virtue can flourish is one of the primary ends of the state. My argument was not singling out young women by any means, but was based on the notion that every serious ethical personal decision that affects society, i.e., marriage, divorce, abortion, and end-of-life issues might rightly be confronted by methods in the public square so that the society might be assured that the person(s) involved recognize that a serious ethical decision is being made. Men or women considering marriage often declaim they would climb any mountain or brave any raging torrent to be with their beloved. Aboriginal American cultures often had such barriers, fasting, vision-quest, or other feats to overcome which one might argue served this purpose. In modern Babylon, i.e., our culture, civil courts currently serve something of that purpose. Currently our courts have a limited set of tools, like prison, fines, and service. It seems likely if we considered the task of the courts to assign barriers to demonstrate one’s resolve, a larger set of tools might be assigned to their disposal, which could then be also used perhaps at a generically higher level, for those who don’t present their case in court.

That is basically a less mocking restatement of the “serious ethical decision” argument. It is one I’d argue for at a local level, so that if/when barriers would be set, they would be made at a micro-scale to be proportionate and be seen as reasonable to those setting them. However, in policy, it is one I don’t ascribe to on a national level. I’m currently of the opinion that these decision of abortion, euthenasia, divorce, marriage, and so on should all be made locally, at the village/precinct level.  At the local level, one response to deciding to forego the regulations put up in these matters is that, you must face the set consequences … or move (preferably prior to breaking the law and facing said consequences).

Mark Steyn’s book, America Alone, isn’t a call for more war, more bombing, or more killing, but for more will. Herein follows a series of posts either highlight Steyn quotes, or listing current events which, indeed, indicate that America is alone in her fight against Islamic terror.

Re: the West’s rabid belief in pluralism and the fantasy of co-existence –

One Step Forward, Several Back, in Efforts to Define the Enemy, Counterterrorism Blog,

As my colleague Jeffrey Imm has recently noted, there has been a alarming few steps back in identifying the Salafist/jihadist threat we face in any way with a growing current of Islam.

The new threat assessment, the State of the Union, (as noted by Andrew Cochran here) both fail to mention Islamism by name.

Our government is not alone. The British government has has decided the Islamist radicals are now to be called criminals so Muslims won’t be offended.

and a consequence,

Chad’s Future Taliban enters capital while the West is asleep,

As Americans are debating who among their candidates for the primaries can best confront the Jihadists or at least preempt their offensives worldwide, future Jihadi forces have in one day invaded an African country (under European protection), a key location for the Darfur forthcoming Peace missions. In less than 12 hours the so-called armed opposition of Chad, crossed the entire country from its Eastern frontiers with Islamist-ruled Sudan to the capital N’Djamena across from Northern Nigeria. The latest reports mention fierce battles around the Presidential Palace and back and forth inside the city. But at this stage the geo-political consequences are crucial for the next stages locally, regionally and internationally. The bottom line is that in one day, what could become the future Taliban of Chad have scored a strategic victory not only against the Government of the country (which was supposed to back up the UN plans to save Darfur in Sudan) but also against the efforts by the African Union and European Union to contain the Sudanese regime and stop the Genocide.

[tags]al qaeda, america alone, aq, iran, iraq, islamic terror, islamist, jihad, mark steyn, multi-culturalism, radical islam[/tags]

At The View from Her, Jan has an interesting post titled, WORDS HAVE MEANING(S) (HT: Intellectuelle). She makes the very good point that we, as Christians, must make the effort to insure that the words we communicate are being understood as intended (which is always a good thing when one is making an argument).

However, I was a bit bemused by a reference to what a New York Times reporter said, at the conference Jan had recently attended. From Jan’s post,

The assumption is that because we’re all speaking English, we’re speaking the same language. Michael Luo, a reporter at the New York Times, and a believer, spoke at one of the sessions and inadvertently clarified one fundamental, doctrinal issue between the two camps. Asked if he had any advice for church people invited to comment on a situation by the news media, Michael said, “Well, be careful about using too much church language. Like… well ‘sin’ is a good example. That word doesn’t mean what you think it means to people outside church. ‘Sin’ is actually, like… good.” And everyone chuckled.

The word “sin” is one of the most divisive words in the heresy battle between the generations. The modernists rail that “sin” only has one meaning, and that the post-moderns don’t like it because it makes them uncomfortable. The word “sin” is black and white. It has an absolute meaning in Christian doctrine.

…Except when it doesn’t. If the world thinks “Sin” now stands for all the fun things people like to do that used to be forbidden, using that word is just a bad translation… like saying, “Jesus died for the good stuff.” It fails to convey the correct meaning across cultural divides. Yes, words do still have specific meaning. But it’s clear that we have to work harder, ask more questions, actively seek to understand, and define our terms to make sure we really understand what the other person is really saying.

On the one hand, I agree that we need to make sure our words – our terms – are understood. On the other hand, I think we need to make every effort to fight against the unwarranted hijacking of the definition of words by a lazy culture.

For example, the implication that Michael Luo seems to be making is that when the world thinks of the word “sin,” they think of “good” (and, I suppose, “fun”). Yet, this is new? Hardly. The writer of the book of Hebrews wrote about the fleeting pleasures of sin (to which Steve Taylor wrote a CCM song, back in the 80s). And one can hardly get through the first section of the book of Proverbs without noticing that the admonitions to get wisdom are laced with the acknowledgment that sin has its pleasures.

Simply put: “sin” is “fun”, and pretty much always has been.

Of course, now we need to define “fun”…

The purpose of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been eroded and molded to fit 21st century liberal sensibilities; that is to say, to take it as much out of the public square as possible.  When Thomas Jefferson responded to the Danbury Baptists, he was responding to a specific question — government interfering with or establishing a religion — and he gave a specific answer.

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Basically, the government will not try to take away man’s natural right of conscience.  It’s the coercion factor that was at issue.  An established religion would require allegiance to the state church for all public servants. 

But no matter how much you want to mangle this straightforward concept, did it really mean to abolish this?

East Brunswick High School football coach Marcus Borden, who said he is fighting for his peers nationwide, is expected to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Tuesday’s federal appeals court ruling that prohibits him from participating in team prayer.

The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia unanimously reversed a July 2006 lower-court ruling that permitted Borden, through his lawsuit against the East Brunswick Board of Education, to silently bow his head or "take a knee" with players as a sign of secular respect for student-led team prayer.

The plaintiffs, represented by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, say respect is indeed the issue.

"The ruling underscores that school district employees, including football coaches, have to obey the establishment clause and have to respect the religious rights of students," said Richard B. Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which represented the school board in its appeal of U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh’s ruling.

Respecting the fact that they were praying, then, is somehow a disrespect of their religious rights?  And what of the rights of the coach?  Does he have to check them at the locker room door?  Note that we’re not talking about him bringing a Bible or leading the prayers; he’s just in the room when the students pray and takes the same position as they do. 

The judges opinions in this case are just as tortured as the logic used to misread the First Amendment. 

Read the rest of this entry

Should a painter be allowed to decide what he or she paints?  Should a musician be allowed to decide what music to play or write?  Should a photographer be allowed to decide what pictures to take? 

In New Mexico, the answer to that last question is a resounding, "No."

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled on Wednesday that an evangelical Christian photographer discriminated against a lesbian couple by refusing a job to photograph the couple’s same-sex commitment ceremony. Religious rights attorneys plan to appeal.

The commission ordered Elaine and Jon Huenins, owners of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, N.M., to pay the lesbian couple $6,600 in attorney fees.

"It is just a stunning disregard for the First Amendment," said Jordan Lorence, a senior legal counsel for the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the photographer couple in court.

Canada’s Human Right Commission has been, at the same time, busy accusing Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and others of thought crimes (covered by the Shire Network News podcast here and here with many more details at FreeMarkSteyn.com), with the idea of "free speech" being considered foreign.

In fact, for an organization that is supposed to promote "human rights," the HRC’s agents seem curiously oblivious to basic aspects of constitutional law. In one famous exchange during the [Marc] Lemire case, [Dean] Steacy [HRC investigator] was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?" — to which he replied "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value." (I guess Section 2 has been excised from his copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights.)

If a photographer doesn’t want to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony, but will get fined if she doesn’t, how soon before the First Amendment become a value-less concept within our own borders?

And this is not just a general free speech issue.  From the original article:

"[Vanessa] (Willock) had requested via e-mail for Elane Photography to conduct photography for her commitment ceremony, and the owner of Elane Photography responded that she would not perform that photography session because it was a same-sex commitment ceremony," [Carrie] Moritomo [public information officer for the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions] told Cybercast News Service .

No punitive monetary damages were awarded because Willock did not seek damages, Moritomo added.

Lorence said the Huenins, who are fervent evangelicals, politely declined the request because they did not want to use their art to disparage traditional heterosexual marriage. That should have been the end of the matter, he said.

"The Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling people to promote a message they disagree with and thereby violate their conscience," Lorence said. "Christians should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs.""

Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School professor, constitutional scholar and contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy blog (where he’s blogged about this issue separately from the new story) is quoted, noting parallels to hypothetically requiring a freelance writer being forced to write for a pro-Scientology web site words that he does not believe in.  He also points out a bit of inconsistency.

"The law says that only when there is a ‘compelling government interest’ and applying the law is essential, only then can the government compel someone to violate their religious beliefs," Volokh said.

The fact that New Mexico does not recognize same-sex marriage makes it hard to argue that government has a compelling interest in protecting same-sex commitment, he added.

Human Rights Commissions are becoming less and less aptly named, and are instead becoming mere tools in the hands of liberal interest groups to silence dissent.  Where the legislative avenue doesn’t work, these commissions and activist judges are the Left’s next front to get their way in social law when the people are clearly against them.

[tags]New Mexico Human Rights Commission,free speech,Christianity,religion,homosexuality,same-sex marriage,Elaine Huenins,Jon Huenins,"Vanessa Willock,Alliance Defense Fund,Ezra Levant,Mark Steyn,Eugene Volokh[/tags]

Dan Trabue (blogging here) and I had a discussion recently arguing a little about theological points. I’m going to return to some of those here, and hopefully both continue the discussion as well as draw some other into it.

Before I crack Mr Cone’s book, some quotes I found in the last few days:

It makes sense if you understand that Liberation Theology views history and social wrongs as the primary emphasis of Scripture. Liberation theology teaches that salvation history is the story of the oppressed vs. the oppressor. And God is on the side of the oppressed. Liberation theology teaches that capitalist countries such as the U.S. do what they do militarily to keep poor people poor, and the rich people rich.

This is, at the base, a theological error which may have actually technically be heresy (that is be rooted in incorrect ideas about God and Trinity). John Zizioulas (among others) in his writings has explained that in the first centuries of Christian development there was a struggle between three notions of Truth. Jewish thought held that truth was to be found in history (which sounds very similar to that cited above). Greek though viewed truth in a Platonic or more eternal sense. Christianity held that Jesus was truth, that truth was to be found in the incarnation (see John 1). In the fourth century the Cappadocians succeeded in synthesizing this in their ideas of hypostasis, trinity and so forth. This synthesis is central to Christian thought and doctrine, but is rejected in the first quoted section.A teaching from that patristic era (I think the source was John Chrysostom) that while the rich should aid the poor from their abundance, this is not a one way street. That is, while the rich should being charitable, aid the poor, the poor in turn, being charitable, should pray for and on behalf of the wealthy. And that does not mean that the poor should pray that the rich “come to their senses” and aid the poor, but that the poor should pray for the health, well being, and good things on behalf of the rich. Liberation theology teaches the opposite of that and because of that is very very wrong. Charity is a primary virtue of Christian life, and by denying charity from the poor to be given to the rich rejects that virtue to be held by the poor. All Christians are called to be charity not just “the oppressors.”

Furthermore the teaching that the US and other powers “do what they do to keep people poor and the rich rich”, is categorically false. Malthusian ideas that wealth and prosperity is a zero sum gain and that there is a fixed amount of “wealth” or resources to go around is old and more importantly wrong! It doesn’t even make anthropological sense. Henry Ford didn’t build cars and and industry to “keep the Black man down” and neither did Rockefeller, Carnegie or any 18th century capitalists, just as Bill Gates didn’t build Microsoft for that purpose. The number of people intentionally framing policy in a racial context is not as large as the racial theorists pretend, in fact it is much much smaller. The vast majority of the US and other powers consist of people getting up in the morning and working hard constructively to make and produce things for their family and clan. This production and constructive activity rarely if at all considers the “other” in a racial or ethnic context at all.

Worse is this from here:

If whiteness stands for all that is evil, blackness symbolizes all that is good. “Black theology,” says [black liberation theologian James] Cone, “refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Small wonder that some critics have condemned black liberation theology as “racist idolatry” and “Afro-Nazism.”

Before you can have a race war in America, you must first set forth an ideology that legitimizes race hatred and keeps that kind of hatred at a boiling point. The theology of Cone seems to be on this path, absolutizing “blackness,” which in turn gives the KKK, Aryans, and kindred spirits an excuse to absolutize “whiteness.”

The result? Two gods vying for supremacy, locked in mortal combat, with no possible resolution, even if by fire, as some groups seem to want.

What can be said positive about the quote from Mr Cone above. In a future post, I will develop further the notion that the ideas of Mr Cone that his theology can be viewed as similar to the prosperity Gospel but the gist of it is that if the Gospel means that God will help them “destroy their oppressors” then how different is that from the Gospel means “I will get rich” or that other earthly desires of mine be satisfied?

In the prior thread, I had suggested that the “resident alien” idea that Rowan Williams had proposed describing the early Christian church was the proper view of that a Christian should take in society and especially when confronted by oppressive situations. Mr Trabue responded that:

Considering one’s self a resident alien in a society with no rights or liberties – where one can’t vote to make changes – makes sense.

Considering one’s self a resident alien in a society where you are a minority voice – makes some sense, too.

Nonetheless, as resident aliens in a culture where we do have a voice and a vote, it also makes sense to work for positive change. And there’s certainly nothing unbiblical about doing so.

[…]

There certainly is not the first thing wrong biblically for voting one’s conscience in a democratic system where one has a voice and a vote, I’d hope that you’d agree. And, in fact, I’d find it shocking if a Christian said that, while they personally were OPPOSED to genocide (for instance), they wouldn’t want to push their personal religious beliefs off on their society when it engages in genocide.

There are three points to make in a response to this sentiment:

• There is, for a Christian living in a participatory democracy or republic, a tension between the notion of “in/not of”, a commitment to other things, and resident alien held against that of rendering unto Caesar. That there is some wide latitude of responses which all remain valid.
• At the same time, in Orthodox liturgy we profess just prior to participation in Eucharist that
  

  I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. I also believe that this is truly Your pure Body and that this is truly Your precious Blood. Therefore, I pray to You, have mercy upon me, and forgive my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, known and unknown. And make me worthy without condemnation to partake of Your pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for life eternal. Amen.

  Note the emphasized part. We are first and foremost to work on our sins not those of our neighbor but our self. God gave man free-will. It is not necessarily our place to deny our neighbor his free will in turn.

• Your genocide example is telling. Some view abortion as genocide, especially as it is so prevalent in the Black community. Is that a plea to bomb or damage/close abortion centers I wonder? Or work politically to make them illegal? Again in this sense, I get no impression from the first centuries of Roman/Christian conflict and history that abortion was fought in any way but by example or for that matter the outworking of Roman political engines, including genocidal acts.

In Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters, Meg Meeker, M.D., lays out her argument as to why a young girl’s father is the most important person in her life. Building on over twenty years of medical practice, including counseling girls, Meeker has come to the conclusion that the father is primarily the one who shapes the path of his female children. The subtitle for the book is, 10 Secrets Every Father Should Know, and Meeker outlines each secret in the book’s 10 chapters. Yet, in reading her book I discovered that, while some of Meeker’s claims may run counter to what our culture tells us, most of the methodologies she posits are very intuitive, demonstrating a common sense approach towards the task of fatherhood. Was it, then, a waste of time to read the book? Certainly not! While the points Meeker explains should be common knowledge, in my opinion, I fear that our culture has denigrated the decidedly male role of father to nothing more than that of breadwinner. I also fear that too many men have been derelict in their responsibility of being their children’s, and in this context, their daughter’s fathers. What Meeker does, so elegantly, is lay out the very real and very important influence that fathers have on their daughters.

That said, here is my review of Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters.

Read the rest of this entry

Henry Neufeld has been having a conversation, some of which is with me, on Healthcare and how being Christian touches on that. He has two more posts to draw attention to, one on a visit to emergency room, and another on fear. I’m going to comment on the first (and hope to on the second later), but before I do, I want to make two things clear. As Mr Neufeld also writes, I share the notion that I am thinking these things through “out loud” on the blog to elicit comments. All these ideas and notions I put forth are not fully thought out. What we’re seeing is more the process as I try to work out some of these issues, a process I’d enjoin others to join in.

The second and more important point, in discussing Mr Neufeld’s emergency post, I’m going to be critical. I want to make it clear I don’t mean this criticism personally, and that all the criticism I offer, applies equally to me, that is, I’d probably respond and fall prey to the things I’m criticizing at least as much if not more than Mr Neufeld. To re-iterate that last point, I offer these criticisms in a generic fashion more as a thing which all of us do, but they may seem as a criticism of Henry but that is only because I am using his example. Read the rest of this entry

It’s only taken about 40 years, but it looks like we’ve progressed from the entertaining Pirates of the Caribbean animatronics, to the ability to rent female robots, ostensibly for product demonstration. From Kokoro, the company responsible,

Absolutely looks like a real human! The “Actroid” humanoid, developed with a cutting-edge technology attract you with its human look-alike appearance and astonishing high expression ability.

Freaky. Can anyone say… Westworld?

# # #I wasn’t aware of this, but the late architect Phillip Johnson evidently had quite the fascist tendencies in the 1930s. Ed Driscoll has made a ten-minute video highlighting Johnson’s escapades, and the apparent manner such activities were later swept under the rug. Driscoll reports that Johnson, upon being allowed to accompany the Nazis into Poland, in 1939, wrote to a friend,

We saw Warsaw burn and Modlin being bombed. It was a stirring spectacle.

A short list of Johnson’s buildings includes:

• The Glass House
• The Seagram Building
• The AT&T Building (now the Sony Building)

Oh, another one of his buildings is… The Crystal Cathedral, in southern California.

# # #It seems that the University of Texas at San Antonio decided to create a code of honor for its students, in order to encourage them not to cheat or plagiarize. Unfortunately, a significant portion of the code was copied from the honor code at BYU. Said Daniel Wueste, director of the Rutland Center for Ethics at Clemson University in South Carolina,

Young people today have a different understanding of what in the way of ideas and words is property that can be taken without authorization…

That, and the obscenely easy task it is to now cut and paste large blocks of text.

The NCAA basketball tournament is winding down (or coming to its climax depending on your point of view), which means April is here and the real racing season is getting under way … that is cycling’s one day spring Classics season. Five one day “classics”, major races which unlike the Grand Tours, which take 3 weeks are under way. In a grand tour, recovery is key for the riders. There’s always tomorrow, you can’t dig too deep, go too hard, because you have to recover to race and ride hard tomorrow. On the one day classics, that’s not the case. You can ride easy, sleep in, tomorrow. But today, there’s a race to ride.

The first of the classics has already run, in Italy (Milan-San Remo). Tomorrow the first of the somewhat more grueling races in Northern Europe are about to commence. The Tour of Flanders is a 260 km (~160 mile) race over short sharp hills mixed with cobbles. The weather tomorrow promises wind, rain, and cold. Tomorrows race includes the Koppe:

Then it is on to the Koppe, the Koppenberg. This climb was made famous by Jesper Skibby when he almost got crushed by the race director’s car in 1987. It has been in and out of the race the last few years. The initial route announcement earlier in the year had not made space for the monster, which rises at a maximum gradient of 22%. Eventually, though, it was put back in – to the delight of the protagonists.

A 22% grade is difficult to walk up, much ride a bike up it, much less race that bike up that hill. Additionally, it turns out, the road isn’t just on a rediculous 22% grade, it’s narrow and uneven. Which means if you want to not lose minutes you have to be in the front and not behind any riders who have trouble. But … remember it’s not just one person that wants/needs to be at the front to have a chance to win … there are 25 teams of 8 riders each in the race. They all want their rider and hopefully one or two support riders to help in in the “break” at the front. That means in the miles coming up to each of the obstacles like the Koppe the pressure at the front as every team tries to position its riders to the front to the race means … well the pace will be murderous.  Read here for more.

It is essentially an item of faith that Mr Cheney epitomizes the height of evil in our Administration.

However, contrast, Mr Obama seen very much differently by the left gave in recent years from his bounty 1% of his salary to charity, from his Mr Cheney 78%.

Words, deeds, money and mouth.

Along the lines of Doug’s The Religious Left post, via Treaders, is Russell Moore’s editorial Alma’s Mater, from Touchstone Magazine (July/August 2007). From Moore,

“Peace and justice” Christians are insistent in telling us they do not wish to move away from the protection of unborn life when they point to other social issues. They simply seek to “expand” Christian social witness from the “Religious Right’s” narrow focus on abortion and marriage to the full range of life issues.

We’re not pro-abortion, they assure us. It’s just that we believe that life doesn’t begin at conception and end at birth. We believe, they say, that global warming and quality daycare and an increased minimum wage are pro-life issues too.

AQI Facilitation Networks Still Active in Syria

In its latest effort to target al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) financial and logistical networks operating out of Syria, the Treasury Department designated today four members of a key terrorist facilitation network. Such facilitation networks have long operated out of Syria and have been the target of periodic designations. As recently as December 2007, Undersecretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey called on Syria to “take action to deny safe haven to those supporting violence from within its borders.” Today’s designation suggests Syria still has far to go in this regard.

…

While Syria has reportedly taken some measures to curb the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, recently disclosed documents seized from insurgents in Iraq revealed that while fewer foreign fighters have been entering Iraq Syria remained the preferred route.

Car Bomb Rocks Southern Thai Hotel

On Saturday night, a 20 kg bomb hidden in the back of a car was detonated in front of the CS Pattani Hotel in Pattani, southern Thailand. Two were killed, three are in critical condition and 15 others sustained moderate injuries. It was the boldest attack by Muslim insurgents in southern Thailand in recent months. Some 3,000 have been killed since the insurgency got underway in January 2004. Violence peaked in June 2007, and has gone down, owing to stepped up counter-insurgent operations; but the average rate of killing today is still above the 4-year average. This is not the first car bomb in southern Thailand, but the first in over a year.

Islamabad bombing targets foreigners

The Taliban and al Qaeda continue their terror campaign in the nuclear-armed state of Pakistan. The latest bombing occurred at an Italian restaurant in the capital city of Islamabad. At least one civilian was killed and 15 wounded in an attack that appears to have targeted foreigners in the city.

…

The bombing occurred in the courtyard of the Luna Caprese restaurant, known to be frequented by foreigners. Pakistani police ruled out a suicide bomb attack and believe the bomb was planted and detonated remotely.

[tags]gwot, global war on terror[/tags]

Cross-posted at New Covenant

In writing about the phenomenon of the culturally feminized man, perhaps I have been amiss in my use of certain words. Not that I’ve changed my opinion, mind you, but I think I underestimated the manner in which my use of the word “feminized”, for example, would be taken. It seemed (and it still does) pretty clear to me, as it must to authors such as Mark Steyn and Nancy Pearcey, how the word should be taken. Yet, I think the negative aspects of this use of “feminization” is perhaps too easily linked up with the mere trait of being feminine (a wonderful trait, I might add, provided that one is female).

So… what word to use? Girlie-man? Nah. Too Terminator-esque. I had thought that “infantile” would be a valid substitute – but that wouldn’t be fair to all the infants in the world (given that they are not yet in a position to defend themselves). So, I’m pretty much left with the word – wimpification – to utilize in describing what I see as negative cultural influences within our society.

That said, first up in this series of posts highlighting evidence of our wimpified culture, is a tidbit from Mere Comments, titled Is Easter Too Scary for Preschoolers?.

The pastors at this church in Raleigh, North Carolina, were perplexed when they saw the Holy Week Sunday school lessons for preschoolers from “First Look,” the publisher of the one to five year-old Sunday school class materials. There wasn’t a mention of the resurrection of Jesus. Naturally, the pastors inquired about the oversight. It turns out it was no oversight.

…

“Easter is a special time in churches,” the letter from the publisher says. “It’s a time of celebration and thankfulness. But because of the graphic nature of the Easter story and the crucifixion specifically, we need to be careful as we choose what we tell preschoolers about Easter.”

…

The curriculum marketers must know how bad this sounds, so they reassure the church they believe that the Gospel is for all people. Leaving out the cross and the resurrection is actually to help children come to Christ. They write, “We’re using these formative preschool years to build a foundation for that eventual decision by focusing on God’s love and telling preschoolers that ‘Jesus wants to be my friend forever.'”

Not only do they think that the Easter Resurrection Day story is too graphic for preschoolers to handle, they also think we should be teaching those same preschoolers some anti-Biblical notion that Jesus wants to be my friend forever. One has to wonder if their curriculum has some benign “Jesus”, smiling, and clad in a sweater, asking the children, “Won’t you let me be your friend? Please? It would mean so much to me? Oh, please, let me be your friend?”

Consider, though, is the “Jesus wants to be my friend forever” message, to four year-olds, any different from the “Jesus wants to have a personal relationship with you” sermon, pitched to adults? For a wimpified culture, I fear that the answer is, no.

Abortion

Christian doctrine and tradition from the earliest writings, e.g., the Didache and Barnabas all speak against abortion. However, even as Christian teaching and tradition all speak strongly against abortion … it’s not as clear that the consequence should be that we should seek to make abortion illegal or for that matter invalidate Roe vs Wade (although I think that should be done for other political reasons completely unrelated to whether it’s “good law” or not).
In this not-so-little book, Saint Silouan, the Athonite,there is a section in which monastic order is described. It is told that St. Silouan and others leaders in the monastic community might have occasion to give a command to another monk. If that command was not obeyed, there was no censure, no rebuke or correction. Making abortion illegal, when we’ve “made it clear” that it’s immoral (and on that most but not all of the abortion proponents actually agree, e.g., the “safe, legal, rare” crowd implicitly agree that it is wrong by adding “rare” to the list) might be all we should rightly do. If I recall rightly, I think the monastic logic goes something like this:

• God will judge us for our actions and deeds at the eschaton.
• God gave us all free will.
• Any action is judged once.
• Thus if I command you to do a thing, and you do it (out of righteous obedience) … only one of us will be judged and that will be the one who commanded. That is, I will be judged not you.
• And if you do not follow that command, you will be judged and furthermore (and more importantly),
• Finally, because God gave us free will how can I do different and I should therefore allow you to do what you wish without censure or restriction.

So the question is this: In a Christian ethical view, keeping in mind God’s judgement and free will, besides explaining that abortion is wrong and immoral what other action is righteous in God’s eyes? It is likely the answer is … none.

Now I realized that lack of censure does not apply to child-rearing and that a government’s laws and institutions form a crucial part of the tripartite effort to keep us civil (state, church, and academe, being the three). My point is that it seems that Christian teaching would indicate that we shouldn’t make abortion illegal.
Hypocrisy

Mr Spizer is the latest public official in the new. Hypocrite is a common charge. Now there may be many reasons to condemn Mr Spitzer, but hypocrisy is a tricky charge to make if one lacks mind reading skills or omniscience. It seems that there is only one circumstance one can press the charge of hypocrisy correctly. That is the case in which one does, as Congress often does, passes laws which apply to others but not oneself. If Mr Spitzer had gone after “johns” in the sex trade industry but had pushed for or added a loophole excluding gentlemen named “Spitzer” that would be hypocritical. However just because I say a thing is wrong and do it, that in itself does not make me a hypocrite. As St. Paul famously remarked the “spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” I can think a thing wrong, do it and still think that it is wrong. The only way I’d be a hypocrite is if I say it is wrong (by lying), do it myself, and for myself yet believe when I do it it is not wrong. The only way someone else can know I’ve that is if they can read into my heart and know truly if I believe a thing is wrong and fell to temptation or am dishonest.

Prostitution

It is a common conceit of the libertarian (and “liberal”) crowd, that prostitution as a “victimless” crime should be legalized. There is however, this (quoting another column):

I changed my mind [on legalization] after looking at the experiences of other countries. The Netherlands formally adopted the legalization model in 2000, and there were modest public health benefits for the licensed prostitutes. But legalization nurtured a large sex industry and criminal gangs that trafficked underage girls, and so trafficking, violence and child prostitution flourished rather than dying out.

and the associated discussion. Mr Cowen’s remark, “I see the costs and benefits of legalization as murky.” I think is spot on. I think both sides of that debate would be better served if they first admitted “murky” as a correct assessment on the costs and benefits.