The SCOTUS today offered a decision putting the US Constitutional law in line with Noahide law, that only if one takes a life it is just to take a life. Specifically that capital punishment is forbidden for a state to enact in response to the a particularly vicious rape of an 8 y/old girl in Louisiana. My remarks follow:

• If a people grant the authority for such to the state, it has the right to take life via due process.
• As a proponent of pushing authority down and not federalizing and centralizing power, I disagree with this as wise decision. States and in fact smaller regions should have the power to act. What is a capital crime may not be the same in backwoods Louisiana compared to tony New Hampshire burbs compared to Montana ranches.
• If capital punishment would be to be offered for other than treason and murder … this sort of case would be it.
• I think the best argument against capital punishment for a variety of crimes is that the expense of the required appeal process exceeds that of life internment. If we want to have capital punishments we should stop paying lawyers (and others involved in the legal process) so much.
• I’m less impressed by the problem of “no recovery” from error. After all there are two points against that argument. Errors in long term imprisonment discovered decades after the crime can’t “undo” the incarceration and loss of freedom, relationships damaged, and youth incurred.  Secondly, I’m Christian, and as such have ontological freedom granted by Baptism and my Faith. Death has no sting … really.

• I might have mentioned this once before, but in case y’all missed it, one of the better web-comics … girl genius, on a MWF schedule.
• One survey of the top 20 (public) intellectuals has all of the top ten as Muslim scholars. Hmmm.
• South America and terror.
• A prominent Protestant blogger, in a sideways fashion, finds a reason for personal (spoken!) confession.
• Some music for your morning, Bruckner’s Ave Maria.

When Reagan won the election in ’80, New York Times Film Critic Pauline Kael famously remarked in amazement, “How could he have won? I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”

I’ve heard it’s the case that “people are really excited” by Mr Obama’s candidacy … however like Ms Kael, I’ve never met a anyone like that … except by proxy on  blogs.

I guess I have to “get out more” … or not.

When we read of the early church, there are accounts of entire nations converting to Christianity because their King or Prince converted. Our impression today is that this paints a very poor picture of the religious faith of those common people who converted on the “mere” say-so of their sovereign.

However, one might turn that around especially in our independent democratic age. For it might say more about what it truly means to have a King and Lord than about their personal devotion. As the Christians are a people lauding Christ as Lord … that lesson is one that might be taken more to heart.

Dan Trabue the other day asked about the basis, in Scripture and Tradition, regarding the reason for having the priest (and Bishop)  always being male in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. For in Orthodoxy, much of what women are just now being allowed to do, has always been permitted in the Orthodox church. Woman are not ordained to the priesthood or episcopate, however can be ordained Reader or Deacon. Women can preach (give a homily), teach, serve the sick and infirm, join monastic orders and so on.

The reason they cannot serve at the altar is that the Bishop (and the Priest in his absence stands in for the Bishop) serves for the Church and his diocese as an Icon of Christ … and Christ was male. Icon and iconography was defended in detail by the 7th (and last) Ecumenical council. The idea of icon is a somewhat more complicated one than can be covered in one blog (very short) post but … hopefully that sheds some light on the matter.

• Bad men, women’s choices, and consequences.
• A mapping of political blogs.
• My first thought was, Jonah Goldberg has heard of the Philokalia, that’s a surprise … but then … it all became clear, it’s from watching the Hulk.
• Well, well, that took a long time, Obama plays the race card. Is it to deflect criticism like this? Or this?
• On waterboarding.
• On #2, is that what I think it is? Getting fined/stopped for not breaking the law, i.e., driving at and not above the speed limit in the wrong lane?

And let there be broccoli too.

In the hunting for a clue category, at Levellers Mr Westmoreland-White writes:

However, there is zero justification for Christians to be willing to kill other human beings (persons made in God’s image; persons for whom Christ died) “in defence of their country” or anything else. To kill is to betray the gospel.

and in a comment:

To say that, however, is not to say that Christians involved in, say, WWII were not trying to do the best they could with what seemed to them to be limited options. Most of them never heard of Christian pacifism, never mind organized nonviolent direct action.

Or in might be better said, to suppose that “Christian pacifism” or “organized nonviolent direct action” would have mollified Hitler and stopped the Nazi war machine is errant nonsense. Now in the 9th century,  Constantinople was besieged by the Rus and her army was afield resisting Islamic armies. They believed that their rescue was owed to the robe of the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary) affecting a miracle to save them. Somehow I doubt a pious miracle is the solution Mr Westmorland-White depends on to replace the armed resistance against Nazi aggression. Actually, the problem is, I very much doubt there is any reasonable pacifistic non-violent suggestions on offer for how Nazi and Hitler might have been confronted or that he will suggest one. Read the rest of this entry

• Military adventurism and consequences.
• A forgotten tragedy. Oh, and update your feed reader, Richard moved.
• Move along, no religious content here, Jews beaten by just “North African youths.”
• City design for those banking on predicting a future increase in mean solar output.
• Resolved. Use the word “brainstorm” in the future.
• Two posts on love, #1 and #2.

• Rome and three Mormans.
• In praise of  . Yes!
• Canada is nuts.
• Myanmar.
• On knowledge of God.
• Automobile innovations from … Hungary.
• Bang! Heh.

Two primary models of relationships between man and woman compete in our society.

On the one hand, we have the sex and encounter driven model. The hellfire club, of meeting, dalliance, of the sexual “freeing of men and women”, celebrated by the likes of Mr Sullivan just the other day. The relationship is centered on the couple and their relationship. If that relationship wanes, there is no reason over-riding reason to continue, in fact the “model” insists or suggests that the pair break off to form new “better fresher” relationships. This lifestyle produces much pleasure and works at some level. Modern technology with (relatively) reliable birth control, the mechanization of industry opening up more and more of the workplace to being “equalized” between the sexes, and the anonymity of modern society all foster this model.

The other model, is the “older” generational model. This model is the one in which one’s relationship is held in context with those between grandparents, parents, children, and grand-children in mind when one forms a relationship. The relationship is centered on family or poetically, hearth and home. If that the couples relationship wanes, there are many strong reasons for that to be re-kindled. The “model” insists on it.

To distinguish in the following I will refer to these as the relational or generational models of family.
The Shakers in the 19th century were a Christian Protestant monastic community, whose members took a vow of celibacy. When an entire faith community takes such a vow, this vow will not survive over-long, because of the lack of children and that primary means of continuing that society. So too, the relational model has a similar structural weakness. It does not sufficiently care for the children in its midst to effectively pass on the virtues necessary to pass on the mores, customs, and praxis to the next generation.

Abortion-as-birth control as is commonly practised, of course sits firmly in the camp of the relational model. Megan McCardle pointed out once, that the problem of gay marriage, abortion, and no-fault divorce so on is not how it affects or doesn’t affect the wealth and middle classes. The problems that arise disproprortionally fall on those with less margin for error. All of these issues at their core dance around the relational/generational divide over how to view marriage.

One you can build a lasting society around. The other you can’t. You can have a small (wealthy) subset of the population which dallies with relational family, but I’d suggest that there are dire consequences when that percentage rises.

• A printing press of sorts, “electrifying”.
• Orthodoxy and the male as priest (and bishop).
• Mr Obama, islamophobe?
• On Edison. Forget “be like Mike”, “be like Thomas!”
• Obama, lying to somebody, link one, link two. One reason to “love Obama.”
• God grant her many years.

I don’t know if discussions of this sort occur on this blog, as I’m a new contributor. Should I offer more like this? Whaddya think?

Blog neighbor Jewish Atheist in a “interview/meme” offers this:

Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

Without God, I can’t see how we have free will. It appears that we have free will, therefore God must exist. Curiously, nobody seems to make this argument except me, on Opposite Day.

My refutation is that we actually don’t have free will. This has disturbing implications, which I have not yet come to terms with.

Not to stab the theistic argument in the foot, but there are a few short remarks I’d like to make here, some of which I’ve touched on before, but perhaps restatement will bring out some interesting details and conversation:

• A deterministic universe exhibits simple free will in the following way. Consider a baby (classical relativistic) universe/close system which consists of a experimental  Feigenbaum mapping (google it), tuned past simple period doubling and to the onset of the chaos. In this situation, the mapping acts as a bit shift, x_n+1 = Fraction(2 * x_n). Initial conditions become amplified by a factor of two every iteration. However, soon over time the Planck distance will intervene, that is the bit shift will probe distances unspecifiable in the initial system, for to specify the system to that accuracy would require probing length scales/energies which would form a black hole … and thus cannot be specified. The system will not “fail” but will exhibit free will, that is the system is “free” and unconstrained by initial (unsettable/undefinable) conditions to take whatever value it wishes. In fact, ever after that point, the system is “free”.
• Suggesting that initial conditions of our universe sets the behavior today, besides the difficulty/impossibility of setting those conditions suffers from a dimensional problem. If the Universe is D+1 dimensional (D=3+1 or 10 … doesn’t matter for this argument), then the “boundary” at T=0 is D a D-dimensional phase space. To line up the bank shot so that Beethoven will, while deaf, compose the Ninth Symphony (or whatever other work of art you find transcendent or inspired genius) that requires setting the conditions and a space (the evolving Universe) of dimension D+1. Fine tuning/accuracy is required to “finesse” the evolution on a large, if not infinite, time axis.
• Another issue facing the fine tuning hypothesis, is the current “best understanding” physics gives about the early Universe, to whit inflation. Small quantum (or thermal) fluctuations present at the onset of the inflationary regime (when space-time is “e-folding” or exponentially expanding) are largely flattened out, those fluctuations survive as galaxies and galaxy clusters today, and form the large scale structure of the visible universe. Setting up the Beethoven bank shot has to survive inflation.
• One way additional way to isolate the free will problem, is genius. That is, I contend genius requires free will. Genius exists. Therefore free will does. To counter that, one must explain how genius can exist without free will. JA, repeatedly contends, without proof, that free will cannot exist in a deterministic system, I disagree. However, on my side I contend that genius, especially as demonstrated in “transcendent” art, cannot exist without free will. The “bank shot” for a deterministic system to create it is too far fetched.

For myself, I would contend free will does not require God. Semiotic content in the Universe however does. If our words have meaning, God exists. 🙂

Amy-Jill Levine is an interesting scholar. An Orthodox Jew she is at the same time, a Professor of New Testament studies in the Vanderbilt University Divinity school. I’ve recently read her book, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. She makes to points in direct opposition to points made by blog neighbor David Schraub.  Mr Schraub has contended on a number of occasion that the notion of a Judeo-Christian tradition is a false one. Ms Levin’s entire thesis and work is built on that bridge. Additionally, he has in a number of occasions advocated that for various situations apology for wrongs generations ago should be made by the descendents. In opposition to this notion in the context of anti-Semitism, Ms Levine offers (on more than one occasion in this book):

 Park guilt and entitlement at the door before engaging in interfaith conversation. Some Christians come t the interfaith table so aware of their history of supersessionism, anti-Semitism, and violence against Jews that they avoid claiming that Jesus is the Messiah, for to do so would be telling Jews that Judaism is wrong. [….] Conversely, aware of the tragic histry of supersessionism, anti-Semitism, and violence against Jews, some Jews come the the table with a sense of entitlement: they seek apologies rather than engagement. Neither approach is useful. Christians today are not responsible for the sins of the past; Jews today are not in the position to grant forgiveness for those sins. Neither Judaism nor Christianity has a pristine history, and victimization is not something to be celebrated. [note: emphasis mine]

These highlight the twin problems which Mr Schraub and the “apology” advocates in Jewish or racial matters miss.

1. Those in the present are not responsible for past sins and those descendents of those wronged are not in a position to grant absolution or forgiveness for those sins at any rate.
2. Coming to the table with an expectation of entitlement or a consciousness of guilt is not conducive to engagement or rapprochement.

• The Christian carnival is up in fine form, mighty early (or late).
• Obama and corruption, not a politician unlike any other. That trope is a lie.
• A description of “moderate Islam”, note its lack of correspondence with actual Islamic tenents. More on that here.
• A lede for a podcast:
  

  A few years ago I was being interviewed on an NPR program, and the host asked me, “All this fancy stuff you do in church, the icons and candles and incense, doesn’t it get in the way? Doesn’t it distract you from worshipping God?”I said, “Imagine that it’s your anniversary, and your husband has taken you to a nice restaurant. There’s a white cloth on the table, roses and candles, a glass of wine, and violin music is playing in the background. Does that distract you from feeling romantic?”.

• Gore sets the example … not!
• An interesting spin on the pro-choice equal or not the pro-abortion notion. Compare the “I’m against abortion, but don’t want to enforce it by law and prefer to work through culture.” to “I’m against torture, but just don’t want to enforce it by law and prefer to work through culture.”
• I loved the film, That Sinking Feeling, is that one of those sinks, well adorned with two cherubs?
• Memory Eternal, my favorite dancer has passed away.
• A problem I haven’t had, cow infestation.

• On the “unlamented demise” of the daily newspaper, in a blunt appraisal.
• On the effects of being conscious of bias.
• Marriage: A two part-essay on marriage and the East. Part one. Part two. Another essay on Kuznicki on Morse on Marraige.
• It seems Easterlin was wrong, money can buy happiness. Is that because happiness is defined down to “contementment”?
• A Constitutional issue and the recent SCOTUS decsion on Guantanamo.
• BSA.