Funny how Sonia Sotomayor, the “wise Latina”, doesn’t know if one has a right to self defense, doesn’t seem to think that owning a gun is an individual right, yet believes the Constitution magically guarantees women the right to kill their unborn child…
Yesterday Rod Dreher wrote one of his little essays on pornography and its prevalence and its harmful effects.
The typical reaction from the left (and perhaps the libertarian) is to note something like this, defending by some statistical correlation with a drop in rape correlated with an increase in porn consumption. There are a few problems with the underlying groundwork that goes along with the statistical correlation, which is undoubtedly right even while it is wrong. There are three problems with this assumption.
Today marks the 40th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11, mankind’s first trip to the moon.
At Wechoosethemoon.org, you can follow a virtual recreation of the entire mission, beginning at approximately 6 a.m. Eastern, 16 July.
Also, check NASA’s web page dedicated to the anniversary.
When I wrote an essay on one reason “why I’m conservative” it engendered an oddly heated response. I was considering the opposite, “why I’m not a liberal” and one reason was that I see the elephant in the room they seem to miss. Some examples:
Now it’s likely that a progressive might be able to make the same accusation turned around at me, a conservative. Claiming on some other issue I’m ignoring the big picture for a seemingly insignificant detail. So, is this a generic feature of our divide? Or is it a right looking left one?
I was driving through West Virginia and Kentucky last weekend and saw a number of signs advertising that some particular road improvement project was being funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act otherwise known as the “stimulus plan” or by its more derisive name Porkulus.
About half the projects I saw on the road appeared to have already been completed. The other half were in various states of progress.
But I couldn’t help wonder about the money spent on the signs. Turns out I’m not the only one. Frankly, I can’t see why the money was spent on the signs. But then again, this is the federal government and, as usual, nothing they do makes sense.
Perhaps the better thing to have done was to forgo buying the signs and spend more money fixing the roads.
I’m just saying…..
Yesterday, Senator Orrin Hatch, who has voted on 11 Supreme Court nominees, had very good opening remarks in the Sotomayor confirmation hearing. His whole speech is worth reading (or watching, if you prefer), but I’d like to highlight a section where he notes that Senator Obama seemed to have a different standard for judicial nominees than he has today. Senator Hatch pointed this out.
I have also found guidance from what may seem to some as an unusual source. On June 8, 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama explained his opposition to the appeals court nomination of Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American woman with a truly compelling life story who then served as a Justice on the California Supreme Court. Senator Obama made three arguments that I find relevant today.
First, he argued that the test of a qualified judicial nominee is whether she can set aside her personal views and, as he put it, “decide each case on the facts and the merits alone….That is what our Founders intended….Judicial decisions ultimately have to be based on evidence and on facts. They have to be based on precedent and on law.”
Second, Senator Obama extensively reviewed Justice Brown’s speeches off the court for clues about what he called her “overarching judicial philosophy.” There is even more reason to do so today. This is, after all, a nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, will help change the very precedents that today bind her as a U.S. Circuit Judge. In other words, the judicial position to which she has been nominated is quite different than the judicial position she now occupies.
This makes evidence, outside of her appeals court decisions, regarding her approach to judging more, not less, important. Judge Sotomayor has obviously thought, spoken, and written much on these issues and I think we show respect to her in taking that entire record seriously.
Third, Senator Obama said that while a nominee’s race, gender, and life story are important, they cannot distract from the fundamental focus on the kind of judge she will be. He said then, as I have said today, that we should all be grateful for the opportunity that our liberty affords for Americans of different backgrounds.
We should applaud Judge Sotomayor’s achievements and service to her community, her profession, and her country. Yet Senator Obama called it “offensive and cynical” to suggest that a nominee’s race or gender can give her a pass for her substantive views. He proved it by voting twice to filibuster Judge Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination, and then by voting against her confirmation. I share his hope that we have arrived at a point in our country’s history where individuals can be examined and even criticized for their views, no matter what their race or gender. If those standards were appropriate when Senator Obama opposed Republican nominees, they should be appropriate now that President Obama is choosing his own nominees.
But today, President Obama says that personal empathy is an essential ingredient in judicial decisions. Today, we are urged to ignore Judge Sotomayor’s speeches altogether and focus only on her judicial decisions. I do not believe that we should do that.
Indeed, Sen. Hatch continues on to note other double standards that Senator Obama applied, based, one can only imagine, solely on the way the judge is expected to rule on particular cases. Democrats have politicized this process (just ask Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas), but Republicans, like Senator Lindsey Graham, have been much more fair (just ask Ruth Ginsberg), and indeed, as he said, "Now, unless you have a complete meltdown, you’re going to get confirmed."
When George W. Bush was elected, Republicans defended his policy decisions, in part, with the phrase, "elections mean things". If the country votes in a President, they vote in his policies and, if the occasion presents itself, Supreme Court nominees. And so Graham also said, "But President Obama won the election and I will respect that." Not as a rubber stamp, but the President does get the benefit of the doubt. Republicans are being consistent in this, and in doing so are trying to hold back or reverse the politicization of the process that Democrats have pushed.
While watching Fox News cover the hearings, as each speaker began their remarks, you saw some information about them; personal information (age, service in politics, etc.), what they’ve said about Sotomayor, and how they voted in past Supreme Court nominees. It was interesting to see how many Republicans voted for every nominee they ever saw, including Hatch’s 11 Yes votes, but how so many Democrats haven’t yet voted Yes. In confirming Sotomayor, the Republicans will once again lead by example, hoping perhaps that the Democrats will see this and act likewise when the situation is reversed. History does not seem to indicate that this will happen, but you can always hope.
TigerHawk has an eye-opening blog post about how much of the economy the Obama administration wants to restructure.
Perhaps a number will help: 35%. That is the aggregate percentage of United States GDP produced by the three industries that the Democrats hope to restructure from the top down: Health care (17% of GDP), energy (9.8% of GDP), and financial services (8% of GDP). Think about that.
And it has to be done now, now, now! Don’t read the bills, and don’t let the public scrutinize them; just vote on them!
And if you act now, we’ll throw in the automotive sector (4% of GDP)! (Sorry, channeling Billy Mays for a second there.)
So then, if the government gets to get its hands into more than 1/3rd of the economy, with a controlling interest never before given to it, would you still call that capitalism?
It is often the case that long standing beliefs about historical trends are found to be in error. This happens so often that one might argue that it the extreme reverse of this is actually true. That the long standing beliefs about historical events and motivations have it exactly wrong. For example, the BEF approach to trench warfare in WWI was in fact innovative, tactically responsive, and did in fact learn from their mistakes … the reverse of the common notion.
The popular impression of that Christians (and others) have about the growth of Christianity in the first 3 centuries hinges on martyrdom. It is often quoted and said that oppression and violence against a group of that sort causes it to spread and strengthen. However, in class this weekend, I learned that this impression on the growth of Christianity in the first few centuries and the example of the martyrs being a primary inspiration for the movement is wrong.
So the, what did drive Christian growth? Apparently, it was the widows and orphans that were the key. In the first few centuries of the Roman empire and the ancient world in general infanticide was common and the lot a widow was very very hard. It was common for a family that had an infant abandon it on the side of the road. They might hope that slavers might pick it up (and it should be noted the lot of slaves was nowhere near as bad as slavery in the Americas which in turn is nowhere nearly as bad as it is in today in the modern era. Slaves likely had as much or more upward mobility than a wage labourer.) Christians began the practice of collecting these infants and either adopting them or bringing them to orphanages which they established. Who ran these orphanages? Likely it was run by monks and widows (living now in convents) … supported through contributions of Christian parishes and wealthy Christians. It was this example and practice and not the example of martyrs which inspired many to consider and join the Christian faith.
This means that Christian charity not Christian heroism (martyrdom) was a more important driver of Christian expansion in the time of persecution. There are two points to draw from this. First this is not meant to deny the important example of those martyrs of the first centuries or even of today. Second, that martyrdom while convincing others of the depth and solidity of the faith was not (and likely remains not) an important evangelical technique but instead that charity was and still remains the key.
This is the version of an article for our parish newsletter on faith and science. The longer version is posted here. It is my hope that this version is accessible to a general audience (the longer version I’ve been told is not so easy to read, but I still think with some effort can be read by any interested reader).
Science and religion
Because the terms science and religion are enormously broad topics they need to be restricted. Science will refer to physics. Religion will mean Christian interaction with that science.
Natural science (physics) has gone through three major stages. These stages will be discussed in turn and the relationship with religion examined below.
Stage 1: Geometry
From the time of the Greek golden age through the 16th century the understanding of nature was based on pure geometry. Study of Euclid was crucial because geometry was seen as the key principle for understanding nature. Aristotelian cosmology and the Pythagorean movement are examples of this view of nature.
In the second through fifth centuries orthodox Christian theology arrived at a basic understanding of the relationships between God, man, and the world which remain dominant with minor variations to this day. Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa both often explicitly tied theology with philosophy (and natural philosophy or physics). One important 2nd century philosopher and contemporary of Origen was Plotinus. That Origen and Plotinus each attended the others talks and interacted frequently is exemplary of the relationship between science and religion at that time.
Stage 2: An Analytic View
Between the time of Galileo and Newton the conception of nature shifted. The understanding of natural laws changed to a description of motions and interactions of objects given by formula, e.g., Newton’s three laws of motion. Descartes laid essential foundations of algebra to describe and prove geometrical concepts. Ways of thinking moved from the constructive geometric view to an analytic one. Later mathematical developments made the analytical approach immensely successful.
In this time period Christian theology (in the West) also underwent a revolution. The theological turmoil of Reformation and counter-Reformation occurred. This changed what Christianity meant for the West. Too, the relationship between natural philosophy and theological thought changed. Science and religion parted ways. The Origen/Plotinus relationship disappeared. While a few priests (e.g., Mendeleev and Priestly) contributed to science, religion’s interactions with science became rare. Some theology would come into direct conflict with modern scientific views, e.g., evolution vs literal creation accounts.
Stage 3: Symmetry.
In the early 20th century mathematical developments began another shift in our understanding of how the universe is constructed. The mathematical inventive work of Emmy Noether, Hamilton, and Riemann made this shift possible. Einstein, Kaluza, and Klein first used this new math, specifically a geometrical property known as symmetry, to provide the conceptual framework of physics. In 1954, Yang and Mills defined the Standard Model based on these ideas. The Standard Model is the current best model of the particles and forces found in nature. Geometry (as symmetry) has returned and again today drives our understanding of nature.
The separation between science and religion which developed since the 20th century has not been resolved. With a few exceptions, like Father John Polkinghorne, who was an important theoretical physicist and is presently an Anglican theologian, little theological thought is being put into trying to reunite and reconcile science and religion.
Natural science over the past 3000 years has gone the distance, from a geometrically motivated view of the universe it traversed through an analytic approach and subsequently returned to a geometrically motivated view. In the first period there was no tension between theology and science. During the second, a separation occurred which continues today.
The complexity and scope of what physics does understand regarding the large and small scale structure of space-time and the natural world is far greater than in the 3rd century. Yet, a theology asserting where God stands in relationship to man and His universe should be developed which is in accord with modern physics. This should be an active and viable task for theology today.
John Stossel has a nice takedown of your most recent article on universal health care. No, it’s not better in France, and it’s going to cost way more than any estimate.
It’s short, so you can indeed Read the Whole Thing(tm).
Help Build Houses and Hope with Habitat for Humanity
