Stones Cry Out

Busy morning for me. You?

1. If our plan holds, this is the next “family” car after the kids move out … or the equivalent in 2017.
2. A few years in the cellar.
3. “Mystical” … what does that mean to ABC I wonder.
4. The standards … they are double, eh?
5. An aesthetic is a method for evaluating art. By what aesthetic is that worth that much? Not one I might fathom.
6. Some games and a photo-essay.
7. Two very different posts on exercise, here and here.
8. While you’re thinking about the IRS.
9. Ink on skin meets religion in the Middle East.
10. OK liberals … defend this! or this.
11. School and men.
12. Frakking and the obvious.
13. He calls it “inexcusable” and is right glad his Chicago training taught him how to have no tracks back to himself on this one … at least as long as those losing their jobs keep their mouths shut.
14. And we end with a discussion of a fictional figure in popular media.

Ben DeBono is one of the co-hosts of a podcast I listen to, "The Sci-Fi Christian".  I have the distinction of having named their alien mascot, "Theo".

Ben is a recent convert to Catholicism, while I am a  long-time Protestant. And yet there are commonalties that people tend to ignore too often. He highlighted one of those commonalities in a recent Facebook post.

Here’s a thought experiment for Christians arguing for biblical support of homosexuality and/or homosexuall [sic] marriage:

On the subject of homosexuality theologians as diverse as the Apostle Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther and every other major pre-20th century Christian thinker stand in complete agreement. Such unanimity is all but unprecedented in the tradition. Even a doctrine as fundamental as the Trinity has greater diversity of thought than homosexuality.

Regardless of how you view the authority of tradition, doesn’t such complete agreement deserve to be acknowledged and taken seriously? If you say yes, how can you justify the near complete lack of engagement with the tradition by those arguing for an understanding of Christianity that is pro-homosexuality? Wouldn’t such a drastic change on this issue demand a lengthy and complete engagement with the tradition?

If you say no, how do you justify the implicit claim that your interpretive abilities are superior to 2,000 years of unanimous teaching on this issue – Protestant, Catholic and otherwise?

Ben shows that, over the millennia, smart Christian guys from all over the spectrum, have been unified on this topic. I made a similar point 2 years ago when I noted that the Bible speak of homosexuality 100% negatively, and of marriage 100% heterosexually. I said essentially the same thing, "Ignore all of that collected wisdom at your peril."

The religious Left has been accepting homosexuality as a "non-sin" over the past 40 years, and same-sex marriage as blessed just for the past 10 years or so. Relatively speaking, however, this is nothing compared to the unanimity of the faith for the last 2,000 years. If one is going to throw out 2 millennia of doctrine, you had better have a good argument that a) this is really what the Bible says and b) the other guys were wrong. Yelling "Equality!" is not such an argument.

Moving on

1. Do drones work?
2. More on the same.
3. Researching for the government. Heh.
4. The liberator and open source.
5. First there was lather rinse repeat now we find eat, pray, drink.
6. Liberty. Three notions of liberty (freedom to choose, loving neighbors/community, and now … freedom to make laws). Do they differ at the core or just the edges?
7. Cheating.
8. Multi-culturalism and its claims … a test lab.
9. The last weeks scandal that was lost.  Another list. A prediction … I’m not convinced he’s lost them yet.
10. Dogs and medical methodology and recommendations.
11. “We don’t rush in half cocked” …  of course we do, if we have to. Remember McClellan  and the Civil war … responding too much to the fear of losing and the unknown leads merely to just plain losing.
12. Biden-the-knucklehead takes credit for the White House promoting fracking. Promoting fracking? What is he smoking?
13. Danger danger Will Robinson!!!

The Kermit Gosnell and Cleveland kidnapping stories have been raising some questions when it comes to the issue of abortion. Gosnell, certainly (and where it was actually covered), definitely brought back to light the issue of the fine line between abortion and infanticide., at least as abortion supporters define those terms.

And the Cleveland kidnapping story is doing it again, from another angle.

The problem, once again, is that at the heart of the Gosnell nightmare were the reports that he was DELIVERING late-term fetuses and THEN killing the infants — after delivery. In other words, these infants were no longer “fetuses,” according to the dictionary, when the abortionist snipped their spinal cords.

Now, were are seeing some interesting, and related, issues emerging in Cleveland, where prosecutors are preparing to throw the book at the alleged kidnapper and torturer Ariel Castro.

The issue is that the state prosecutor may seek the death penalty.

Now, from the perspective of the journalists defending a consistent use of the term “fetus,” even when the term is inaccurate (see Gosnell coverage), here is the hard-news question of the moment. If the prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty for Castro in this case, who did he kill? What human persons with full dignity and legal rights, under this nation’s current legal regime, died during these alleged crimes?

The Get Religion blog takes the angle of how (or if) the reporters "get religion", and it highlights good and bad examples. However, in the Gosnell case, the bad examples were legion. It’ll be interesting to see how the media deal with a death penalty in the Cleveland case.

G’day

1. Seems like a good thing.
2. Well, time is probably something they have on hand.
3. More things than are dreamed of in your books, perhaps.
4. Bravo.
5. Hey! That’s an old standard “dad” line.
6. Privacy or “market research”.
7. ad hoc gun show.
8. Number 6 is Mr Obama who appointed them, eh?
9. Alienated, young, and male.
10. To quoth the President a few days after the Benghazi incident “a shadowy figure behind the video sparked the attack” … “nothing new was learned” … yep. Nothing new, except that doesn’t mean what you think it means.
11. Mali watch.
12. Classical education and what that used to mean.

OK. Take a few

1. Colorado oversteps. Would local zoning laws do it?
2. All that sex talk makes Lucy a duller girl.
3. A set of odd wheels for bikes.
4. Devil(s) … impersonal or not?
5. Why? Maybe they were wearing swim suits not sweaters. More on that IRS thing here.
6. Touche.
7. Purple prose.
8. Great apes and swimming … and the resultant map.
9. Heh.
10. A mom reflects on mother’s day.
11. Losing the left on the Benghazi kerfuffle.
12. A good question, after all most of the research was supported by your taxes. And is arXIV sufficient to ameliorate the problem?
13. Famousness.

The White House talking point on Benghazi is that the hearings “told us nothing new”, which I think isn’t exactly what they were hoping for. You’d think that they would be wanting those hearings to exonerate them, instead of confirming what we already knew, i.e., that they were scoundrels.

Kermit Gosnell, the abortion quote-unquote “doctor” who regularly carried out illegal abortions in Philadelphia and killed already-born babies by cutting their spinal cord, among other horrors, was well-known to other abortionists who routinely referred women to him from up and down the eastern seaboard. His reputation preceded him. So those other abortion doctors knew what he did, but didn’t report him.

The women who were his victims did report him, but that still didn’t get anything done. His clinic went 17 years without an inspection, even though there were inspection-worthy complaints in the interim. Various state agencies did nothing even after victims’ lawyers contacted them.

And another group turned a blind eye to this; Planned Parenthood. President and CEO of Planned Parenthood SE Pennsylvania Dayle Steinberg said that her organization knew about this but did not report it. Instead she said, “We would always encourage them to report it to the Department of Health.” The buck doesn’t stop here. It doesn’t even stop for a rest. And of course, the Department of Health was one of those delinquent state agencies.

I have complained that the media have ignored this story, and they have, but even before they tried to sweep it under the rug, Planned Parenthood, various other abortion doctors, and various state agencies all turned a blind eye to what was going on here. If there is a war on women, the abortion industry is on the front lines.

G’day

1. One thing you don’t have to worry about shopping in the Midwestern ‘burbs.
2. Yah, that will work. So, does that mean the state department is completely ignorant of how difficult stopping a 2 megabyte zip file from being disseminated might be. I mean, why even bother. Setting aside the point that there is no actual reason for them to try to stop it in the first place.
3. Diversity and USC.
4. Modern atheism, likely flash in the demographic pan.
5. Modern reason takes a turn to the dark side. (in which dark implies ignorance and such)
6. Uhm, Ms Pelosi is grandstanding … let’s see “sequestration” is keeping a very very wealthy woman from “visiting the troops” … does that mean sequestration is keeping her from buying a plane ticket? Nope. Making phone calls? Nope. So how is sequestration stopping here. Answer,  Uhm, no … it’s not and … Ms Pelosi … you are flat out lying.
7. Impeachment. Although there is no reason to impeach Mr Obama … the Senate has Democratic majority, there is no point.
8. Fear the duck.
9. A danish writer of some renown compares Easter/Pascha celebrations in Rome and Greece.
10. Short answer, no.
11. A book list.
12. Used weather, dirt cheap.

Well, then …

1. A little honesty … to bad we don’t get more of that in politics.
2. Speaking about things needed in politics … we can dream, eh?
3. Space and fire.
4. About the WDML.
5. Spin backfires.
6. Actually it’s not a “game changer”. Zip guns have been around for a long time and this is just another zip gun.
7. And on that topic … you do realize there is no actual need to reinforce the notion that the left is completely ignorant when it comes to firearms.
8. Apparently Ms Clinton had an accurate accusation.
9. Fracking comes to Asia.
10. Well, duh.
11. Yikes.
12. Boots on the ground, costs, and performance … works for military performance and applies to lots of other things too.
13. A confession.

Yah, links?

1. Well, that’s to be expected. That arab “spring”  is a thing to behold.
2. Actually, I think the motive or at least the logic of “what did he want to achieve by that” is not very clear.
3. “The most callous thing” which means  Mr Biden completely lacks any imagination at all. Or has led an incredibly sheltered life to not realize that there are hundreds (thousands) of “more callous” things that man has done to man than that.
4. Girlfriend?
5. Doing the treadmill right.
6. Very very pretty. This too.
7. Archaeology underwater.
8. Pesky trends for the gun control = emergency crowd.
9. Where it’s not cold when it rains.
10. Apparently the “is not welcome” at Church is a recent lefty meme, alas … not true.
11. The Paschal (Easter) 2nd homily from the Russian patriarch (the first was the original by St John Chrysostom spoken at every Orthodox Paschal celebration for many many centuries … when something is done right … why change?).

Yo.

1. Progress isn’t always.
2. Fast has multiple meanings.
3. A bishop does good.
4. Heh.
5. Logic and the not-pro-life crowd.
6. Some Irish history.
7. Sounds like …. (or of language and memory)
8. Hermeneutical fail … in that I have no idea what is meant by that reply.
9. A possible future.
10. In trying to parody (highlight?) loony remarks of the other side, the poster comes of as a, well, bigger loon. Wonder if that was the plan.
11. Healthcare and Oregon.
12. “Cleared for transfer“.

Good morning.

1. The gun/girl culture.
2. Mr Obama’s buddy defends his bombings … unsuccessfully it seems.
3. Hmm.
4. Even handed remarks from the left, or not.
5. And in that vein … yikes.
6. Culture.
7. Statistics and risk.
8. From the weekend, (Christ is risen).
9. Mental health and guns.
10. Book burning and the interwebs.
11. Well, did that just end the gun control debate?
12. Happiness metric.
13. Perhaps more than just cultural pressures?

That’s the title of John Stonestree’s article about how the folks pushing for polygamy and polyamory are making the very arguments that conservatives made for decades, right up until very recently.

In a scene from Jurassic Park, Ian Malcolm, the mathematician skeptical about whether the park is a good idea, watches the T-Rex burst out of its enclosure and says, "I hate being right all the time."

Princeton Professor Robert George and other defenders of traditional marriage understand these sentiments. For years, they’ve warned that redefining marriage beyond the union of one man and one woman wouldn’t-indeed couldn’t-stop with same-sex unions. The same reasoning that extends marriage to same-sex couples would easily be applied to polygamy and polyamory also.

The standard response to these concerns was scoffing and accusations of fear mongering.

Well, the fences are down and the beast is loose.

He provides 3 examples of recent attempts to argue for them just within the past few months. But these arguments are not new. It’s just who is presenting them that is.

As Dr. George pointed out in "First Things," when Christians pointed out the logical link between same-sex marriage and polygamy, proponents of same-sex marriage rejected the connection. They insisted that "no one is arguing for the legal recognition of polygamous or polyamorous relationships as marriages!"

George writes in response, "That was then; this is now." The "then" he referred to was last week; the now is today.

George predicts that Keenan’s article "will not produce a single serious critique by a major scholar or activist from the same-sex marriage movement."

Now he would love to be wrong. But defenders of traditional marriage know that the enclosures that kept marriage a "monogamous and exclusive union" are being dismantled. And no one should be surprised by what emerges, least of all those doing the dismantling.

If George was right about what would happen, would critics also be right about the predicted results of this breakdown?  Marriage is more "for the children" than any other institution or government program that has had that label slapped on it. The best arrangement for children is to be raised by their loving and committed biological parents.

And yet, we are tinkering and tearing down the one thing that can best protect the next generation. The results have been predicted to be calamitous. If we were right about predicting the slippery slope this far, wouldn’t it be prudent to consider whether we’re right about the rest of the ride?

Good morning.

1. Let’s start with some doodles, of a non-graphical sort.
2. If you believe a thing to be true, it’s not lying … if you publish it in a paper however, it means your editor is sleeping on the job.
3. Racial blinders. It’s not race, it’s culture, btw.
4. Oh go ahead, be happy.
5. Looking at the prospect of naval warfare and situational/geographical tactics.
6. Are we really talking about Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread?
7. Coloration.
8. Considering the Boston brothers with bombs.
9. And something more to be said on that front.
10. Rolling back the clock, is it possible?
11. Heh.
12. The trials and tribulations of covering the military.
13. In need of financial advice.
14. Mad skillz.

The calls for polygamy, especially in the light of changing attitudes on same-sex marriage, are getting louder and more mainstream. Jillian Keenan writing at Slate.com, makes a feminist case for polygamy, as well as demonstrating the slippery slope in action.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults.

If you don’t think that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, you must refute her arguments that make that link. I don’t have to refute them, because a) I don’t think the definition of marriage is plastic, and b) I do think one leads to the other. If you do think marriage should be…whatever, but don’t think it leads to polygamy, you’ve got your work cut out for you. But if you are up to the challenge, let me hear your argument.