Stones Cry Out

“Elective abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.” – Scott Klusendorf

At Conversant Life, we have the post Dobson and Pigskin Politics, regarding the recent controversy surrounding the pro-life commercial produced for the upcoming Superbowl. Excerpts from the post,

In the article [ABC], Gary Schneeberger, a Focus on the Family spokesman, is quoted as saying, “There is nothing political or controversial about the spot.” Are you kidding me? Nothing political or controversial… right. Focus on the Family has become synonymous with both politics and controversy due to its strong alignment with crazy right-wing ideologies.

…

Regardless of where one stands on abortion, the only thing most us will take away from this commercial is that Focus on the Family ran a commercial during the Super Bowl, and the message, however good it might be, will be lost. Look, I do think abortion should be avoided in most circumstances and there are many folks on both sides of the political aisle who agree on this. But how to actually reduce the occurrence of abortions is the point of contention and Focus on the Family has unfortunately become associated with the Christian Coalition/Pat Robertson political machine on this. (FYI, Robertson says things like, “The feminist agenda encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”)

Where does one begin when addressing such illogical ranting? Does Jonathan (the post’s author) truly believe that an argument for choice – which, if pro-choice supporters wish to be consistent, is what the pro-life option really is – is, in reality, some crazy ideology? And is their argument so weak that they need to make a National Enquirer-esque link with Pat Robertson?

One has to wonder what those, like-minded with Jonathan, have to say regarding the Scott Klusendorf quote leading off this post? If, in fact, the unborn are human beings, then that changes everything. The ‘rights’ issue being discussed, then, moves from that of privacy to that of civil; from reproductive rights to life rights. As I have argued before, when faced with arguments against the pro-life movement, consider replacing the word “abortion” with that of “slavery”. The shortcomings of the pro-choice (sic) argument then become painfully clear.

Regardless of where one stands on slavery, the only thing most us will take away from this commercial is that Focus on the Family ran a commercial during the Super Bowl, and the message, however good it might be, will be lost. Look, I do think slavery should be avoided in most circumstances and there are many folks on both sides of the political aisle who agree on this. But how to actually reduce the occurrence of slaves is the point of contention…

Yeah, there’s a crazy ideology at play here, but it has nothing to do with being pro-life.

1. As Lent approaches … a fast practised by the Chaldean/Assyrian, Ethiopian, and Coptic churches that I’d not known about … the Ninevite fast.
2. After all that … Russia is indifferent.
3. An economics paper noted.
4. A econ question.
5. A book noted … another here.
6. How to teach and study ethics.
7. The hard left and militant Islam … a match not made in heaven.
8. The SOTU address discussed. A valid point on that here.
9. Foolish zeal and St. Ephrem.
10. All that spending … did what? A fat lot of nothing.
11. Well, all the kerfuffle about Obama/Alito tells me only that people need thicker skins. Heck guns have been discharged in the halls before. Now, people apparently care about “mouthing ‘no'”. Geesh. And alas, Mr Obama had it wrong factually … not that it matters. Some more remarks from the center, which oddly enough is being ignored by the left. One more from Ms McArdle.
12. A list which the left wants us to slip further down.

In Congress Went to Denmark, You Got the Bill, CBS reports on the cost to taxpayers for the recent Global Warming Climate Change summit in Copenhagen. Not surprisingly, the bill is over $1.1 million, which doesn’t include the President’s staff. However, what I think is the most interesting comment, regarding the trip, was made by Rep. Henry Waxman.

“It was cold… I was there because I thought it was important for me to be there,” Rep. Waxman said. “I didn’t look at it as a pleasure trip.”

Did you catch that? It was cold at, of all places, a summit on Global Warming.

Sigh.

1. Of Kazahkstan and Belorus … and Russia.
2. Weirdness in the courts.
3. Pro-life.
4. This has been linked all over. Econ rap.
5. Remarks on the “freeze.” Links here.
6. Mr Easterly pumping what I saw as a primary thesis of Mr Collier’s Bottom Billion book, i.e., it’s complicated and there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
7. A pun.
8. Rhetorical gap and policy gap.
9. Dostoevsky.
10. Rock the voters … should applaud the recent SCOTUS reversing (?) finally McCain/Feingold.
11. A prediction (last sentence) … fulfilled (on blogs at least).
12. The man with the big ego … is afraid of kids?
13. Predictions for the SOTU.
14. Spending and the beltway.
15. Our economy at work.
16. Maths thinking (use an auto translater).
17. Is outrage.

At Evangel, the Rev Paul T. McCain noted that he was somewhat unfamiliar with the details and differences of and between the Eastern Orthodox and the Western (liturgical) calendars. So, with that in mind, I thought I’d attempt to fill in what’s happening and up and coming for the liturgical year at this point. There is a personal reason for writing this, and likely I’ll bring it up again in the next few weeks, which I will get to in a bit. But first, where are we in our respective liturgical calendars?

In the West, liturgically these are the numbered weeks of Epiphany waiting for Ash Wednesday and the start of Lent. Lent in East and West is a time when the services become more somber and reflective. It is a time set aside, preparing for the great feast of Pascha/Easter. In this time fasting, prayer, more frequent liturgical services, charity, and introspection are emphasized. It is a time to sharpen and hone our attention to our spiritual state and life. We are asked to abstain from meat products (anything invertebrate products), dairy, wine, and oil (although wine and oil are permitted on weekends). At the same time, we should eat less often (no snacking) and push away from the table just a little hungry. That is to say this is fasting both by restricting variety and quantity. For the monastic (or the very devout) practice a complete fast for the first three days of Lent is observed … and during the rest of Lent then only eat in the evening.

There is a small matter of dates. For the West, Lent begins on the morning of Ash Wednesday (after the Shrove/Fat Tuesday emptying of the larder). Lent is 40 days (not counting Sundays) and ends on Easter. For the East, Lent begins on Monday, counts the Sundays but Holy week (Palm Sunday) ends Lent. Even though Lent is finished, the fast is not ended until Pascha.

What follows is a brief description highlighting some of the features of the Sundays approaching Lent for the Eastern tradition.

The three weeks leading up to Lent and the four Sundays associated with those dates are special liturgical events. Each Sunday has special significance with a knickname, and a particular gospel lesson which assist the countdown to Lent.  Last Sunday was the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee and thus this is now the “week” of the Publican and the Pharisee. The gospel reading on Sunday, obviously, was Luke 18:10-14, being the story of the Publican and the Pharisee. Next Sunday will be the Sunday of the Prodigal Son (the gospel reading being Luke 15:11-32). Following that will be the Sunday of the Last Judgement (gospel Matthew 25:31-46). Finally the last Sunday before the beginning of Lent, is the Sunday of Forgiveness (the gospel read is Matthew 6:14-21). This pattern is followed every year and these Sundays start beating the drum heralding the approaching Great Lent.

The Lenten fasting is stringent and accordingly the fasting which is proscribed in the three weeks are designed to prepare one for the fast. Normally in “ordinary” weeks one is instructed to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays in the same manner as one fasts during Lent. The Week of the Publican and Pharisee (this week) is fast free (cheers). Next week is an ordinary week regarding fasting, i.e., fast only on Wednesday and Friday. The Sunday of the Last Judgement is also known as Meatfare because the following week is meat free, but dairy, oil, and wine are still permitted thus that will be the last meat eaten until Pascha. Then after Forgiveness Sunday is over, which is also known as Cheesefare, and dairy is removed as well from the diet. Thus in this way one is introduced over a three week period to adjust to the fast as it approaches.

On the evening of Forgiveness Sunday there is a Vespers service (Forgiveness Vespers) which some jokingly describe as “Orthodox callisthenics.” At the conclusion of this service each person in attendance, in turn, prostrates himself before the each other kisses him (or her) three times and humbly begs their forgiveness for all the many sins we have committed against the other. This entails quite a bit of dropping to ones knees, pressing ones face to the floor, and then standing up to kiss, hence the “callisthenics” remarks.

Here is where the personal request comes in. On the first four days of Lent, starting with Monday in the evening many Orthodox churches hold a service in which the four parts of the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete is performed. I find this service almost overwhelming. In impact, from my point of view, it compares with even with the Pascha celebration. I have, for myself, not seen any liturgical reflection on or of repentance that comes near to matching this in its impact, its cathartic content, or its depth. From a personal perspective I am really interested in a non-Orthodox impression or remarks on this service. I wonder how much of the impact this service has on me is because I’m an Orthodox convert and how much is due to the impact of service itself. Frank Turk in a post earlier this year dropped his (in)famous remark that some Catholics and fewer Orthodox are saved and based this in part because he felt that non-protestants fail to “a sense of repentance.” Well, Mr Turk, attend one or more of the Canon services and see if you can still say that the Orthodox aren’t repentant enough, that they don’t “know” what it means. This service in many ways defines repentance. More seriously, this year Western Easter and Eastern Pascha are on the same date. Which means … on Monday prior to Ash Wednesday a Protestant might be able to attend a service in which this Canon is performed, there should be no liturgical conflict at any rate. So, if anyone non-Orthodox who might read this and takes up this request to witnesses the canon and is willing to report, please contact me by email (or drop a comment on the blog) and let me know what you thought. I’d be grateful.

My soul, my soul, arise!
Why are you sleeping?
The end is drawing near,
and you will be confounded.
Awake, then, and be watchful,
that Christ our God may spare you,
Who is everywhere present and fills all things.

The above is a short hymn sung three times slowly in the middle of the service.

From Michael Ramirez (click for a larger version):

Oh look, a squirrel….

1. Considering Vampires, an interview.
2. Pretty.
3. Reflections on marriage.
4. A return to Canae.
5. A resource for Lent.
6. On the Conan/Leno thing.
7. The crescent in the EU.
8. Ice biking.
9. Hmm.
10. My first thought on that was that why just freeze (or cut) such a small portion of the budget. Doesn’t he realize that won’t really have much effect? This piece says that more fluently than I. It also occurred to me they could halt (and terminate) any further “stimulus” expenditures that remain to be allocated.
11. More divisive than that other guy.
12. A question.
13. A beating, racially motivated?

Well, as promised I’m going to try to talk about my upcoming oral final exam, an Old Testament homily for my late-vocations class that I’m taking. We were given the task of selecting a OT lection (reading section from the liturgical rubrics) and give an approximately 10 minute homily on that topic. I’ve selected to give a homily on Job 2:1-10, and I might note that being Orthodox we’re using the Septuagint (for that is their Scriptural canon) and the book of Job differs considerably (it’s 400 lines shorter but is longer in some places). The Job 2:1-10 reading is significantly extended in the Septuagint. Many of the changes are not very consequential. However, the final chapter differs in some surprising ways, which indeed might affect one’s interpretations of the story. Read the rest of this entry

1. This is a really interesting piece, nominally on chess, but likely having lots of interesting wider implications.
2. Adults and YA fiction.
3. Hmm.
4. Internet and freedom.
5. NASCAR and minority crap, err, lawsuits … not what you’d expect. But in retrospect, exactly what you’d expect from the racism implicit in the progressive movement.
6. Politics and Mr Obama’s “going after the financial sector.”
7. Trying to buy votes.
8. Moving words around.
9. PC speech crap.
10. A book highly recommended.
11. Handling Mr Stewart (and how).
12. Perhaps bloggers have to fill the gap.

Today marks the last day of our 21 day Daniel Fast (and… I’ve already got the coffee-maker ready for Sunday morning!).

It’s interesting how this year’s fast was so different from that of 2009. Certainly, the fact that our diet was not the same as that of last year has a role in the different fast experience. While our 2009 fast consisted of mainly salads, vegetables, and fruit, we chose to include nuts, legumes, and whole grains for 2010. And even though this change left me more satiated, I still found myself feeling somehow – full, yet unfulfilled – in the food department. Perhaps it was because of this feeling that I found myself fasting complete meals more often than I did in 2009. And while such a practice does make one feel hungry, such physical nudges are harnessed by the mind as reminders of God’s mercy, grace, love, authority, majesty, and power.

Sure, I’ve been thinking about doing my awesome (imo) smoked ribs, or homemade pepperoni pizza (this time with some mushrooms on top). I’ve sat and watched Diners, Dives, and Drive-Ins, and got the urge to make our own shredded beef tacos, along with fresh (or homemade?) corn tortillas, hot off the griddle. And then there’s our homemade spaghetti, with a meaty tomato sauce that’s been prepped with tons of garlic and steeped in red wine. Besides that, I’ve been looking forward to grabbing a double-meat burger, fries and chocolate shake, from IN-N-OUT. And all the while, I’ve come to the point of thanking God for the wonder He has created… the sights, sounds, textures, smells, and tastes. The love and care He has for us, created in His image, to not simply give us nourishment – but to lavish upon us a richness of the senses.

If the bread we eat, which we do not live alone by, is so rich, then how much more so is the Bread of Life? How sweet on the lips is the Word of God?

So, as the crackling sizzle of bacon permeates off the pan, as the intoxicating aroma of coffee wafts its way through the house, as the dark crimson enchilada sauce engulfs your enchiladas, as the tender morsel of pulled pork melts in your mouth, and as the enigmatic flavor of dark chocolate excites your taste buds, remember to thank our Heavenly Father, for His Love.

Presented here with no other commentary than a hearty, “Amen!”  James Taranto:

“The majority is deeply wrong on the law,” according to a critic of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC . “Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money.”

Whose opinion is this? We don’t know exactly, because it is not attributed to any individual. It is an unsigned editorial in the New York Times. That is to say, it reflects the collective opinion of the Times editorial board, a division of the New York Times Co., a corporation that exists to make money.

It’s lucky for the New York Times Co. that the Supreme Court upheld its First Amendment rights. Otherwise, it could not have exercised its First Amendment right to denounce the court for upholding its First Amendment rights. Right?

Not quite. As Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in his opinion, the McCain-Feingold “campaign finance” law–which until yesterday’s ruling made it a felony for corporations to engage in certain political speech–exempted “media companies” like the New York Times Co. (and News Corp., publisher of The Wall Street Journal and this Web site) from this restriction.

McCain-Feingold, in other words, granted a small group of companies, including the New York Times Co., the privilege to speak freely about politics, while denying it to all other corporations–not only “companies . . . that exist to make money,” but also taxable nonprofits that exist to represent a point of view, including the advocacy arms of the Sierra Club, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association.

The editorial published by the New York Times Co. includes no mention of the special privilege the New York Times Co. enjoyed under McCain-Feingold–a privilege that creates at least the appearance of a journalistic conflict of interest. Is not the failure to disclose the New York Times Co.’s interest in McCain-Feingold a serious violation of journalistic ethics?

The Times’s opinion is wrongheaded as well. Under the paper’s cramped view of the First Amendment, the privilege the New York Times Co. enjoyed under McCain-Feingold was just that: a privilege, not a right. The First Amendment does not say “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech of media corporations.” If the Constitution doesn’t protect corporations, it doesn’t protect the New York Times Co. And if Congress had the power to grant an exemption to media companies, it also had the power to take it away.

As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in McConnell v. FEC (2003), such reasoning would permit “outright regulation of the press.” Some on the far left, complaining about “corporate domination” of the media, would like to see just that.

In past generations, the New York Times Co. had a proud tradition as a defender of free expression. It was the prevailing litigant in two landmark Supreme Court cases expanding and vindicating First Amendment rights, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and New York Times Co. v. U.S. (1971). The former case, by the way, involved a political advertisement.

What a shame it is to see a once-great media corporation become a fair-weather friend of free expression.

From Instapundit yesterday:

HAITI RELIEF? Soldiers told to stop handing out food. “Food handouts were shut off Tuesday to thousands of people at a tent city here when the main U.S. aid agency said the Army should not be distributing the packages. It was not known whether the action reflected a high-level policy decision at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) or confusion in a city where dozens of entities are involved in aid efforts.”

One is likely to assume that the lack of a cohesive government down there and logistical problems would be to blame.  However, one of Glenn’s readers replied with his first-hand experiences.

The “aid” agencies did the same thing in Afghanistan. Being a logistics specialist, I volunteered to help an American NGO with rebuilding schools, and was on the ground in Kabul in January of ‘02. (I later ended up in charge of UNICEF’s warehouse/distribution operation for all of the new school supplies…leaving me with a complete and total disdain for all things UN-related.)

For the NGO community, to be seen co-operating with the US military was the kiss of death. NGO co-ordination meetings specifically warned against co-operation with the US military, as opposed to UN agencies. The supposed reason was that they wanted a clear line between the “killers” and those that were “there to help”.

Hey folks, get over it.  Stereotyping the military in this way does no one any good.  How many NGOs have facilities to desalinate ocean water and provide food as much as an aircraft carrier does?  Yeah, thought so.  America is using it’s vast resources to help and all you can do is this:

They would actually COMPLAIN that the military was out doing things like rehabilitating wells and such, whining that these were things that should be left to the aid agencies. The irony of the fact that we were all sitting in a meeting, DISCUSSING it, while the US military had already been out DOING it, was completely lost on them.

Sounds like it’s same-old, same-old. Nothing but tools, the lot of them.

Yup, ya’ gotta’ get over it.

1. Hamas and Hegel.
2. Hmm, looking (especially at the final paragraphs) at this, I think author believes that … and I don’t think it’s correct, for example I don’t think there was any possibility of “market friendly” reforms and the bill that was passed was anything but “moderate and bipartisan in everything but name.” How does someone come around to thinking that way? (a reply here)
3. Unhappy about free speech. Here’s the salient question those M/F backers won’t answer. More here.
4. Orwell as setting the political goals of the left.
5. Killin’s too good for him.
6. Hummus, although not in preparation for the upcoming Lenten fast.
7. Giving Mr Obama his due.
8. Germany (apparently) takes parenting seriously … even if the blogger noting it does not.
9. Nubrella.
10. Well, that’s very very cute.
11. Just wrong.
12. Prester John.
13. Words to inspire.
14. Post election satire.
15. Pseudo-science.
16. While I was originally going to try a hope/change sarcastic remark in response to this, I think this is better. If you (unlike me) assume Mr Obama is intelligent, earnest, and of high moral quality and he thinks this is the right (and ethical) thing to do … how do you figure he comes by that conclusion?

1. Scotland, the Buckfast scourge (?), and monks.
2. Islam and Christian relations in the 19th century (one example).
3. I’ve been in the Huxley “camp” for some time, how about you?
4. Waiting for NSS, which one expects will be more fruitful than Godot (in that it will eventually come).
5. Tax on tax.
6. Ant-walking alligators … a ghastly notion.
7. Weep.
8. Standards for girls.
9. Sueussian rhyme.
10. Min wage and employment (and some remarks on UI too).
11. On a need for statemen, I think right now however left and right have a very different idea of what an ideal statesmen might be, the left looking more for a super-policy-wonk and the right for a Lincoln or Washington (a person with integrity and vision).
12. I’ve a question for anyone who thinks this is problematic … what would be your reaction to a secular (say FSM) “Easter egg” in a similar situation.

Theodicy is a topic I’ve been thinking about a bit. Next weekend, in the OT course I’m taking my final is to give a 10 minute homily on an Old Testament lection (assigned reading for a liturgy, matins, or vespers service). I was considering doing my little talk on a Genesis reading, because that’s the book I know the best. I’ve read a number of commentaries on Genesis (including the wonderful Kass book) and 4 or 5 separate translations, some heavily footnoted and with generous comments. But … I’ve decided instead to stretch myself and am going to talk on Job 2:1-10 … although I will likely stray to include remarks on the entire narrative of Job and the theodicy contained within that book.

Theodicy connects often as well to apologetics. Blog neighbor Larry Niven at Rust Belt (link) often looks at what he sees as failing theodicy arguments as a proof of God’s non-existence, for in his view without an answer to Theodicy God cannot exist (or be good … or at the very least worthy of worship). One of the likely failings here is that logic is not up to the task of describing everything. If he put his critical analysis of argument to work on those things to which he ascribes then likely he’d find they also fail. As Mr Plantiga remarks (in a book I have yet to read so forgive me I can’t support the details of the argument) that the argument for the existence for God fails, but it fails in a direct parallel to the argument for the existence of other minds, which also fails. We all (I’d venture) expect that other minds in the universe actually exist. Thus the failure of the (logical) argument for other minds really existing does not give us pause in our belief in them … thus that “best” (logical) argument for the existence for God failing also might not be flawed. This isn’t to say that it means that just as other minds exist so must God exist, that is the failure of the argument is no justification for non-belief if you believe other minds exist. On this subject, I’ll try to expound in the coming week.

So anyhow, during the next week I’ll likely be developing thoughts for my homily. In that regard, does anyone have any suggestions for net based resources on theodicy general and Job in particular?

I should mention that the lection noted above is read during Holy Week on Wednesday night. So besides connecting this reading to theodicy a discussion of what connection (which I think is sort of obvious) Holy Week and its events have with Job. My guess is that the obvious connection is that God’s answer to evil (and specifically bad things happening to the innocent) is the promise demonstrated by the Resurrection. But that might be just too easy an answer. I’m suspicious of easy answers.