Stones Cry Out

Mr Schraub gets it very wrong, and I think on this point, he is not alone in this on the left. He (and others) love to jump on the property/marriage allusion. One wonders if that is a prime example of, to coin a word, a Vizzinism? (From, of course, the Princess Bride where Vizzini keeps coining the Dread Pirates advance as “inconceivable” and Inigo Montoya’s rejoinder is “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”)  But enough lexical silliness. To the point, Mr Schraub offers:

Property, in its simplest form, is that to which you have the right to exclusive use (and can correspondingly exclude others from). In a very real sense, that’s precisely what a closed relationship is: a mutual grant of exclusivity, reducing at least one element of another’s personhood to the level of property.

and connects that to notions about:

A lot of bloggers have taken apart the risible Dennis Prager’s sex advice column, in which he advises married women that they should have sex with their husbands even when they don’t want to.

So, what have we here simply put is that Mr Schraub connects the idea that the notion that a spouse might be advised to consent to sex when “they don’t want to” equates that same said spouse with property.

Property? No. No. And No. Let’s examine how this is in error. I should note, that I’m not arguing an anthropological point that no societies have treated their spouse as property. However, Mr Schraub is alluding in part to Jewish and Christian notions as suggested by his allusion to Mr Prager, which indeed I will argue these traditions support such notions as that which Mr Prager suggesting regarding sexual relations disregarding your personal desire at that time without any requirement or delving into notions of spouse as property, which is an assumption it seems that those on the left are amazingly quick to leap. Read the rest of this entry

• Unable to sustain faith (in science infected with money interests). One wonders if global warming and the money/science/faith connection with occur more globally.
• Hotels and Internet. It’s my experience (globally) that the high end and low end hotels all charge for internet. Judging from the Internet price, I’d guess SPH considers itself “high end” and charges accordingly like its peers.
• A book for youth (and perhaps more) recommended. Twelve more here.
• The former premier atheist remembered.
• The view from the entitlement wing.
• Home servers?
• Directly connecting media and Palin vs Kennedy. This connects to that as well.
• Straight to a girls heart, genus genius of course.
• QoD links. (that’d be mostly evolutionary biology)
• A deontological response.
• An atheist disagrees fundamentally with Dawkins.
• Hunting … Elmer?
• Heh.
• So, now we all know.
• I saw many of his works displayed in the Russian Museum in St. Petersburg this summer and I agree they are very striking.
• Saint Lucia remembered.
• Crime and punishment?
• Where the green global warming fans (fanatics) are leading us, to solutions that just don’t work?
• Christ hidden in Talmud?

A question that struck me regarding the Rick Warren flap.

I’ve been paying attention to Presidential races and elections since 1972 … and voted in every election since 1980, which makes for some 6 to 8 Presidential elections … and that’s what a good half dozen swearing in ceremonies. And I’ve never ever watched one or had the slightest interest in paying them any mind or thought that watching, much less attending, was a “thing to do.”

So no matter what you think about Mr Obama’s choice of Rev. Warren, why do you think this matters? And for that matter, have you yourself ever watched a swearing in or felt it a thing “to do?” If so, why?

It’s typical of periodical media of many types, news, sports, special interests at this time of year to do year end reviews and so on. Last year I suggested some books which I thought most affected or influenced my thinking and ideas in the prior year. As a reminder the two books, which I still very highly recommend from last year were Stephen Collier’s The Bottom Billion (note: now in paperback) and Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age.

• For the first book, an interesting approach to the theodicy problem in The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? This book frames the problem and stresses that there aren’t “trivial” answers locates the best solution (and framing of the problem) in the literature as being found in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov which … I also finished reading this year at long last. And which, now having found the suggestion that this book, among other things, is “about” theodicy I will start to re-read. This book too, I glanced at but will return to when I return to the latter book here Dostoevsky: Language, Faith, and Fiction.
• For my second book, I’m going to have to go with The Princeton Companion to Mathematics, which I highly recommend to anyone who likes math and has a few collegiate mathematics classes under their belt.

How about you? Any books you found interesting that you read in 2008?

President-elect Obama, the One, is less than a month to his inauguration and he’s already getting tested.

From CNN, At least 155 killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza.

Israeli Maj. Avital Leibovich told CNN the military began the attacks “in order to preserve the security situation in Israel.”

“We are prepared for any type of scenario right now. We have our own operation and assessments as we go along, and we are ready to continue this operation as long as it takes,” Leibovich said by phone from Tel Aviv.

The campaign is over, Barack.

Pray for Barack Obama, and his cabinet.

Much has been written about Pastor Rick Warren’s invitation to give the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration in just a few weeks. Many on the left have been upset about the selection of Pastor Warren because of his stance against homosexual marriage. Some on the right are suggesting that he may be compromising the gospel for the sake of political influence.

Pastor Warren is symbolic of what’s happened to evangelicals over the past 30 or so years. The church has forsaken the gospel in favor of gaining political and cultural influence. As a result, principles have been compromised.

If Pastor Warren truly wants to be effective, then he should take Cal Thomas’ advice and be more like the prophet Nathan:

If Obama plans on having Warren as a presence in his presidency, Warren should seek to model himself more after Nathan the prophet. Nathan confronted King David over his affair with Bathsheba, whose husband, Uriah the Hittite, David sent to the front lines to ensure he would be killed so that David could have his wife. God sent Nathan to David. Nathan told David a story about a rich man who stole a poor man’s lamb rather than take one from his own flock to feed a visitor. Nathan asked David what should happen to such a man. David replied, “that man should surely die.” To which Nathan replied, “You are the man.” (2 Samuel 12)

Nathan’s confrontation led to David’s repentance and one of the most beautiful Psalms ever written (Psalm 51). The point is that Nathan did not compromise Truth, but confronted David with what he had done wrong. How many modern preachers would confront a president like that? Probably not many if they wanted to maintain access.

Former Governor Mike Huckabee wrote this in his book Do The Right Thing quoting his mentor James Robison:

The prophets of old were rarely invited back for a return engagement. In fact, most of them were never invited the first time. They came to speak truth to power regardless of the consequences.

Governor Huckabee goes on to note that one can be a politician or a prophet but never both. My hope is that Pastor Warren will take this opportunity to be a prophet and not worry about being invited by President Obama for another speaking engagement.

John Rowe (for example this post at Positive Liberty) is just one example of many who frequently cite the notion that Christian theology is not one of freedom. Putting it quite strongly, a commenter Andy Craig apropos of the post above notes:

A pretty good argument as to why biblical Christianity is on the whole a fundamentally authoritarian worldview and has little place in a world of individual liberty, actually. It’s one of the main reasons I rejected Christianity and religion in general (most religions take a similar view of government authority).

In the post itself, it is noted that Romans 13 written by St. Paul in the rule of Nero (who it might be noted did have a predilection for augmenting lighting public fixtures with Christian corpses) specifically enjoins the Christian,

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

which is pretty straightforward … it seems. However, this in a large measure misses the point. Read the rest of this entry

• The (third?) most famous Christmas celebration?
• The second being this one?  … the first being the original Nativity of course.
• A Christmas eve homily … and reflections from Bono.
• The nativity icon, a very busy icon indeed, i.e., a lot is going on there.
• Year in review … for gymnasts.
• Jim notes what he considers the best Western icon of St. Nicholas of Myra (compare to a more typical Eastern depiction).
• Sense and sight in the Middle East.
• Humor in church.
• Suggestions of first books if you want to read some Torrance.
• Faith and Mr Bush.
• Hmmm.
• Yesterday’s prayer request … an update.
• A question for Pakistan, do you welcome such “support”?
• Not impressed with Mr Cheney, but also not reconciled (or considering) such things like the fact that Mr Cheney gives more than 70% of his income to charity.
• Beauty from nature … of a technical nature.
• A dark Christmas.
• … therefore God exists.
• Considering if … Rick Warren were Black.
• On addiction to pornography.
• Fatigue and environment.
• The tropar for the pre-feast of the Nativity.
• Are we not as dumb as previously thought?.

I’ve just completed a 24 hour or so train trip to the East Coast. In the absence of computers and the net, books were read.

I’ve really enjoyed reading through the first parts of the Princeton Companion for Mathematics. I’ve been away from academics and “real” mathematics for almost 20 years. This book is aimed at a mid-collegiate level math background and so far is pitch perfect for me, although I’m just getting into topics in section 3 with which I’m not very familiar. Anyhow I recommend it highly.

St. Siluan the Athonite is a great spiritual read, but best taken in smallish bites … at least for me.

The Death of Ivan Ilych by Leo Tolstoy was very good and a very short study on why a little self-examination and reflection is a good idea. Actually (as my parents don’t regularly read this blog), I’ll admit that I’m going to give it to my father for Christmas once-read.

I’m about half-way through Ian Banks The Algebraist which paints an interesting galactic society without breaking (much) known laws of physics (I think wormholes, if possible are harder to “work” with than suggested).  I’m getting hints half-way through that this is a book about oppression and liberty.

I’ve read a few chapters of Fagles and Fox recent translation of The Aeneid and had brought a parallel book The Black Ships but didn’t get a positive impression of the second from the first 10 or so pages and will defer returning to that for a while.

Finally, I still have “grand” plans on reading a Banks “Culture” novel (The Player of Games) and a translation of Henryk Sienkiewicz With Fire and Sword before getting back to the midwest, but that will depend on time remaining and how much the Companion grabs me in the meantime.

• Verse.
• Turkey and the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
• Lust … revisited?
• Monastic and ordinary.
• Aack! Someone (a blogger of note) to add to your prayer list.
• He’d be the one to do it.
• A historic time?
• One truth.
• Mr Erlich, Obama’s science advisor, and his past expertise noted.
• Undersea … also note Benedict on Islam.
• Indeed, although it took a little digging to figure out what it meant.
• That‘s going to leave a smell.

President-elect Obama has invited Saddleback pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation (i.e. opening prayer) at the inauguration.  While Obama and Warren disagree on some issues, Obama says he wants to "create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable."  In fact, this follows in the footsteps of Bush’s choice in 2004, as the Huffington Post notes.

At his 2005 inaugural, George W. Bush tapped Rev. Dr. Louis Leon to deliver the invocation. Like Obama and Warren, the two shared a commitment to combating AIDS in Africa, as well as a friendship from time spent in each other’s company. But Leon was and is a progressive voice. And his selection in ’04 sparked a lot of interest, though little of the outrage that we see with Warren.

Indeed, the "tolerant" Left side of the blogosphere didn’t seem to get the "disagree without being disagreeable" memo.

Americablog: “Great, then where are the racists, Mr. Obama?"

Markos himself at Daily Kos: “Yeah. Where is David Duke’s invitation? Or as Blue Texan notes, when do Phelps and Hagee get their invitations? Heck, throw up Tom Tancredo up there for good measure, so us Latinos can feel some of the hate!”

Atrios: "Wanker of the Day: Barack Obama."

Firedoglake: "President-elect Obama chose eliminationist hate preacher Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s Inaguration. With this choice, Obama sends three destructive messages. Number one: In Obama’s America, equal rights and reproductive freedom aren’t for everyone. Number two: President-elect Obama likes sharing the national stage with hate. Number three: While Obama enjoys his equality before the law, LGBT Americans can go to Hell. Literally. Gee. Is this change we can believe in?"

Andrew Sullivan: "…pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen."

Think Progress:  "…he laughs off accusations of being ‘homophobic’ because he ‘talks to’ gay people and served protesters water."

(A tip of the hat to Don Surber and John Hawkins, from whom I got much of this list, and who have even more examples.)

Once again, we have examples of liberals, who tout their "tolerance" and "acceptance", being wholly unable to handle any sort of deviation from the orthodoxy.  Additionally, as even the Huffington Post notes, the folks they claim are the intolerant ones actually were more accepting when they were in the same situation. 

Tolerance.  You keep using that word.  I do no think it means what you think it means.

The NY Times reports that things are looking better for black families.

The number of black children being raised by two parents appears to be edging higher than at any time in a generation, at nearly 40 percent, according to newly released census data.

[…]

According to the bureau’s estimates, the number of black children living with two parents was 59 percent in 1970, falling to 42 percent in 1980, 38 percent in 1990 and 35 percent in 2004. In 2007, the latest year for which data is available, it was 40 percent.

That’s definitely good news.  Let’s look at the reasons the Times suggests for this change.

Demographers said such a trend might be partly attributable to the growing proportion of immigrants in the nation’s black population.

Oh, so some of this can be attributed to intact black families coming in to the country.  Well, that doesn’t speak to the families already here.  How about them?

It may have been driven, too, by the values of an emerging black middle class, a trend that could be jeopardized by the current economic meltdown.

So indeed black have been doing quite well during the Bush administration.  You’d never know that from watching the news and listening to rappers dis’ Dubya.  Still, very good to hear.

So then, anything else>

The Census Bureau attributed an indeterminate amount of the increase to revised definitions adopted in 2007, which identify as parents any man and woman living together, whether or not they are married or the child’s biological parents.

Ah, I see.  By simply revising the definition of "parents", the Census Bureau can manufacture some good news.  As James Taranto (who gets the hat tip for pointing out this article) notes:

And why stop there? Suppose the Census Bureau were to redefine two as meaning "one." Voilà, any child who now lives with "one" parent would have an intact family. Instantly the rate would go from 40% to nearly 100%. Wait, make that nearly 200%.

Some may object that the middle of a financial panic is not the best time to start redefining numbers, a practice that could have unintended and undesired consequences for interest rates, currency exchange rates, asset values and so forth.

So here’s a more modest idea: Why not redefine together to mean "on the same planet"? So long as at least one man and one woman live on Earth, whether or not they are married or the child’s biological parents, every child is being raised by two (or more) parents, and this will remain true at least until we begin colonizing space. Hey, it takes a village!

Next: ending tyranny in the world by redefining tyrant to mean "lame-duck president."

In the original article, Prof. Robert Sampson, a Harvard sociology professor, call it "a positive change".  Right.  Kids are living with cohabitating "parents" instead of a married couple, the numbers look better partially because of intact families coming from other countries / cultures, and all this in spite of a burgeoning black middle class.

The good news is that the statistics are up.  The bad news is that actual change in the culture is not the reason we have the good news.

• Considering “Merry Christmas”. I think the next person I exchange greetings with is going to get “Have a Nifty Nativity” from me.
• Then and now, the intellectual elite during WWII and the current crises.
• Sunny California, thanks to global warming (and yes, I know “weather is not climate” I’m just funnin’ y’all). 🙂
• Memory Eternal.
• A picture shared … with bikes.
• Much ado about, well, very very little aka The Warren kerfuffle. From Ms Ham, the Jewish Atheist, and Mr Westmoreland-White.
• Writing on religion, “all of them.”
• Another option, bankruptcy.
• Will it be money well spent?
• Heh.
• Saying nothing in reply.
• “That’s why it’s covert?“
• Resources for the Orthodox. (HT: Fr Gregory)
• Regarding fear.
• A film recommended.
• Uhm, change the channel dude, duh. There are actually alternative choices out there.
• Thoughts of a young girl, but wait ten years to see if it changes.
• Horror.
• The latest hints of Obama related scandal.
• Obfuscation and consequence.
• Verse and prose in parallel.
• Virtue.

• Gun nuts.
• Faith demonstrated in a life.
• Unimpressed by Calvinistic overtones of the remake.
• Cash and Christmas and lists.
• Damning with faint praise.
• The liturgical gangstas, I missed parts 1 and 2 … but this looks like a good series.
• Oh, O, err, Antiphons.
• Fields, charges, solar activity and climate.
• Novak, is he taking the Barlaam side on the uncreated light debate? (The original article here).
• What we need today.
• Putting today’s market movement in perspective.
• Self inflicted pain.
• To make a grandmother proud.
• That ‘splains it.
• Insanity.
• Verse.
• On being loved.

Anti-abortion activists have often claimed that for Planned Parenthood, abortion was primarily about money; more abortions, more income.  PP has insisted that it’s about freedom and choice and health.  But a new video that came out recently shows that following the law is a principle that can be ditched by PP when freedom, choice and health (or…money) is on the line.

Stop the ACLU has the story:

Many of you are already familiar with Lila Rose. About a year and a half ago, she recorded a conversation with a Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles (PPLA) staffer. She told the staffer that she was 15, and that her boyfriend was 23, a clear case of statuatory rape. The PPLA staffer told Lila to simply lie about her age and encouraged her to get an abortion. The conversation set off a firestorm. She also showed the racist eugenics that Planned Parenthood still seems to be practicing.

Earlier this month, Lila Rose’s organization, Live Action Films, released a video, the first in their Mona Lisa Project. For those who haven’t seen it, here it is:

[Embedded video]

This video has prompted an investigation from the Indiana Attorney General of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, in response to the video, fired the employee.

Last night, they released the second video in the series, at a separate Planned Parenthood, with nearly identical results.

The language in the two videos is nearly identical. The advice given is strikingly similar as well. It’s becoming a bit of a stretch to believe that it’s just one employee when these videos are so similar, isn’t it? Does Planned Parenthood perhaps coach their staffers on what to say? Not only do the two employees cover up for the felony of a 31-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old, they give helpful advice on how to cross state lines to avoid Indiana’s parental notification law. What kind of depraved people would do something like that?? How is it that Planned Parenthood can have what they believe to be a 13-year-old tell them they’ve been impregnated by a 31-year-old and not feel they need to take legal action? Aside from the clear fact that they’re breaking the law, do these people have no morals, no ethics?

Apparently not, which calls into question which of the aforementioned values — freedom, choice, health or money — is really more important to them.

The fig leaf that is no longer available to PP is that the employee on the first video was a lone staffer not following the rules.  Getting two examples of it starts to show how thin that leaf is.  They’re willing to close their eyes to the exploitation of a child by someone else so that they get their shot at exploitation, too. 

Your tax dollars at work.  Really.