Same Sex Marriage Made Easier…

Michael Hawkins has posted a rather facetious diagram on his site which is meant to explain the same-sex marriage debate – and looking at it, I can understand his confusion. But it’s really not that difficult to understand, in fact I can sum it up in a single statement:

The definition of marriage, from a biological, historical, social, moral, and Judeo-Christian perspective inherently excludes homosexual relationships.

There, that seems clear enough and clear enough to most of the citizens of this country as well.

It’s even clear to legislators in New York, who are generally exceedingly obtuse.

The irony of idiocy

A plethora of posts today, but I am playing catch-up.

This bit on the irony of how our rights have played out in our country; burning a flag is now Constitutionally protected, but displaying the flag apparently isn’t:

Decorated Veteran, 90, Fights to Raise Flag in His Yard

A veteran of three wars who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor is now facing an unlikely enemy — his neighbors.

Col. Van T. Barfoot, 90, has raised the Stars and Stripes every day at sunrise and lowered them every day at sunset since he served in the U.S. Army. But on Tuesday he received a letter from the law firm that represents his homeowners’ association, ordering him to remove the flagpole from his Richmond, Va. yard by 5 p.m. on Friday or face “legal action.”

The homoeowners’ association at Sussex Square community told Barfoot that the freestanding, 21-foot flagpole that he put up in September violates the neighborhood’s aesthetic guidelines.

I normally don’t feel motivated to contribute to a legal fund, but this is one time I would certainly be willing to.

Does Christianity lead to Atheism?

An odd lead question, but the thought results from a brief quote I read some where (which I have utterly failed to find; I often read a lot in short period of time, and it is hard sometimes to track where all the bits come from) and the obvious rise of New Atheism. It is a question we need to ask as we watch our Christian culture rapidly erode.

A bit of history first; as Christianity spread across Europe, Zeus and Jupiter and Thor were all laid to rest, in large part because Christianity represents a significantly superior metaphysical system. The God of the Bible isn’t merely a glorified man with all the attendant weaknesses; He is transcendent, above and before all things, and yet intimately intertwined with the personal history of mankind. There are no squabbles in heaven; unlike Olympus and Valhalla, Christ isn’t performing in a celestial soap opera, vying with all the other gods for power and love. Christ is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, and all alternatives are obliterated in a primarily Christian culture.

As much as this is true, only one alternative is left to the God of the Bible when a culture is primarily Christian, and that is no belief at all. As the old gods no longer suffice, and as human hearts are ever seeking their own way apart from ‘the light’ as Christ put it, many are left with no alternative but to abandon religious belief all together.

This would explain the increasing secularization of Europe, and how a Russia fully ensconced in the Orthodox faith turned to the harshest form of atheism-in-practice, namely Stalinism.

Atheists also have the advantage of tolerance in a primarily Christian country. Unlike many civilizations, original Christianity understood that belief in Christ was an act of the conscious will – that is one must choose to follow Christ; it could not be the product of compulsion. As a result, atheists are free to reject prevailing Christianity, even criticize it with little fear of reprisal – a notion that would be unthinkable in Islamic countries, or many ancient theocracies.

In addition, living in a country that is predominantly Christian affords atheists cover for a lack of moral code – they can adopt the overarching morality of Christianity while maintaining the pretense that morality can be readily derived from reason. There is no history to support the notion that the moral basis of Western nations can be derived from anything but Christianity, but once established, the origin of morality is often quickly forgotten.

This understanding sounds an ominous bell for the US. Though we remain one of the most religious countries in the world, at least according to polls, the increasing secularization of our culture seems fairly obvious. And when closely explored, the religious are less likely to believe in an orthodox (little ‘o’) form of Christianity, and in what has come to be termed Moralistic Therapeutic Deism – basically a watered down version of Christianity meant to make us feel good about ourselves and give us hope, without all the attendant challenges of obeying God and respecting His commandments, or fearing any form of judgment.

And what this portends for the US is a potential European secularization, with all the diminishments that come with such a change; increasing hopelessness, less interest in family and future, and more concern with immediate comfort and pleasure.

In the gospels Jesus tells a parable of a man who, once free of an evil spirit, does nothing to fill the emptiness in his soul, merely orders his life without seeing it transformed:

“When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”

I think the truth Jesus meant to impart here is that a mere veneer of spirituality is not sufficient to maintain fruits of a Christian life; indeed it can open the door to a state worse than having been a Christian culture at all.

In short, our generation in the Western world enjoys a home put into order by others before us, but to the degree we don’t experience for ourselves sincere belief and personal transformation, the emptiness that remains invites evils much worse than those Christendom originally displaced.

When good scientists go bad.

Though it’s a bit of old news now (‘old news’ in this day and age meaning older than one 24 hour news cycle) the scandal that has come to be known as ‘Climategate’ continues to reveal the depth of the corruption in climate research.

Though there are a number of aspects that could be commented on (the media and leaders ignoring the story, the legitimacy of gaining information through hacking, etc.) I think what is most telling as the whole event unfolds is the degree to which scientific endeavors are corruptible by human nature. Science, which is understood by the materialist to be the be all and end all of human knowledge, is held up as ultimately reliable because it is based on testable observations, rigorously reviewed by knowledgeable peers, who have no interest in a particular result.

Of course that is the ideal; in reality science is conducted by human beings, and if there is one certain universal truth about human endeavors, it is Lord Acton’s axiom, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely”. That truth is a cornerstone of American political philosophy, but it is a concern in any human institution – economic, religious, and yes, even the scientific sort.

In the case of the climate research going on at University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, whose work was central to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) purposes, hacked e-mails reveal that power and politics did indeed do the work of corrupting reason and research. And it isn’t just the occasional remark which indicates how the research was manipulated; lengthy chronicles of the manipulation of data are now available that show how little of the research was based on robust, consistent data, but instead was massaged, directed, and contradictory data was ignored.

And to add to this travesty of ‘science’ is the revelation that the original data upon which the studies were based has all been lost, keeping others from effectively examining the research.

But most of this is little surprise when one realizes that climate research has become big business and big politics – governments make international treaties based on this research, politicians and celebrities make movies and win awards by advancing the claims, and those who give knowledge gain a prestige that is hard to come by in the course of ordinary academic investigation. Power and fame are the most addictive intoxicants known, and being a scientist does not make one immune to their effects.

The reality is that science is best when it limits itself to readily observable phenomena, providing explanations and solutions for those events which can be reproduced in controlled circumstances, researched by multiple independent observers, whom are free to express dissent and skepticism of the ever changing consensus.

Science is at its worst when it strays outside of this pervue into politics and metaphysics, where it’s pronouncements are based on vague and unique data sets, susceptible to interpretation based on the bias of the researcher, which take the form of unassailable dogma. This sort of ‘science’ mocks dissenters and skeptics, insists on adherence to a consensus, and resists contrary explanations in an attempt to hold onto power and reputation. In short science that has given way to all too human inclinations. Such tendencies are common to all human institutions, but science has all too often held itself up as a special form of knowledge which is immune to human nature, when it is in fact only one of a number of forms of human knowledge, limited to certain uses, but impotent beyond that.

Understanding and acknowledging these limitations is critical not only to good science, but to good policy and a good society. Lord Acton added to his common dictum these less well known thoughts:
“Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

Our society would do well to remove science and scientists from the pedestal of authority they now enjoy, if for nothing else, to save science itself.

Making a Declaration

I have to admit I am not much of a joiner – or signer. I have a rather innate tendency to go against the crowd and avoid populist movements. But when a statement brings together Evangelicals, Catholics, and those of the Orthodox persuasion, it catches my attention.

The Manhattan Declaration is just such a statement – it addresses three fundamental issues, critical to Christians everywhere, of every ilk – it is introduced as follows:

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

It’s pretty straightforward – three issues which require our response and steadfast affirmation. They are not popular positions to take, but this is time to be a shrinking violet Christian, compromising on principles.

The people who wrote this recognize that our backs are against the wall as it were, and at least on these issues we have much more in common than we have separating us, and these perilous times requires a unified response. Many of the names are immediately recognizable – but in my mind their names aren’t nearly as important as yours and mine – I would strongly encourage you to go to manhattandeclaration.org and sign their petition or common principles.

Does Darwinism Lead to Murder?

Pekka-Eric Auvinen, Finnish Shooter

Causing no little consternation as of late is a recent article in the Science section of the Sunday Times Online which chronicles the apparent link between the evolutionary (and once revolutionary) ideas of Charles Darwin, and the propensity for violence among youth.

The article in question, Charles Darwin and the children of the evolution, by BBC journalist Dennis Sewell suggests that a number of high school killers, specifically Columbine killer Eric Harris, and Finnish shooter Pekka-Eric Auvinen were motivated by Darwin’s idea of natural selection, however twisted their understanding of this idea was.

Another recent link was made from Darwinism to violent behavior in the pages of the science journal Nature. There author James Pusey explains the foundational role Darwinism played in the mega-murderous regime of China’s Mao. Most of this isn’t particularly surprising; I have written myself about the direct connection between Darwin and the early 20th century ideas about eugenics that led to so many deaths.

And of course is the same sort of argument that got Ben Stein in trouble over a year ago when he made it in the Intelligent Design documentary ‘Expelled’, which generated heaps of derision on Stein from the atheist/evolutionist circles. And the anger over these current articles is coming from the same quarters. Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago Professor of Ecology and Evolution (and not surprisingly atheist apologist) bemoans the connection Sewell makes between Darwin and bad behavior , and points out atheists are capable of being moral too:

Apparently Sewell hasn’t heard about the secular origin of morality, or the fact that, as even many theologians admit, we cannot philosophically ground right and wrong on divine fiat. And what’s wrong with accepting one’s morality as “matter of personal choice”? Isn’t it more admirable to act out of reasoned principles of morality than out of fear of eternal immolation for disobeying the Sky Dictator?

All of this rather begs the question about whether or not evolutionary theory is true; obviously if that is the case, then it is what it is, whatever morality it provokes. This being said, if evolution does provoke such behavior, then it perhaps deserves a scrutiny that other scientific explanations, less directly related to human behavior, might garner. Whatever the realities of dark matter for example, its existence is highly unlikely to incite dark behavior.

Beyond this though I think evolutionists wrongly deny, or are simply don’t realize that evolution is more than a mere scientific theory, even while they utilize it as a basis for their own metaphysical beliefs in agnosticism or atheism. Coyne exemplifies this when he says sarcastically in his response to the article, “I hadn’t realized that Darwinism was a “world-view.” Silly me — all along I thought it was just a theory meant to explain the development and diversity of life.”

Of course even a casual observer realizes evolution is both, and as much as there is dispute over evolution between various interests, I think the primary dispute comes down to the worldview evolution seems to suggest.

On one hand, narrowly understood evolution is a comprehensive theory composed of various natural events – mutations, natural selection, adaptation, speciation, etc., some more readily observable than others. The totality of these events is believed to be responsible for the origination of all life on earth – however that is not all evolution says about us as humans.

Because of evolution’s presumed critical role in the origin of humans, and all that defines us – our minds, our societies, our behaviors, our concepts of right and wrong behaviors – evolution forms a metanarrative, or a comprehensive explanation of human knowledge and experience. In short it claims to tell us what we are and how we came to be what we are, and as much as it does this it forms a basis for acting according to that narrative.

The very fact that strong evolutionists so consistently cling to a particular metaphysic (agnosticism or atheism) and so consistently cite evolution as the foundation of that belief demonstrates how evolution serves as a metanarrative. So it isn’t a great leap to consider that behaviors provoked by strongly held evolutionary beliefs might in turn be consistent under similar circumstances.

In fact, one might say it is obvious as the beak on a Galapagos finch.

The Contradictions of the Healthcare debate

I am certainly no healthcare expert, nor am I a noted economist (or even an ignored economist), so I don’t feel adequate to delve into the nitty gritty of the current House bill. However, it doesn’t take an expert to observe that over the course of the debate about health care from the current administration, there have been numerous contradictions, both in terms of logic and fact. Many of these get short shrift in the 30 second analysis we get from the media.

 One of the first logical contradictions one notes has to do with the ‘Healthcare System wastes 800 billion dollars’ vs. ‘Insurers regularly deny care’ claims. On one hand we presented with a picture of stingy health insurers, who routinely deny care in order to line the pockets of their greedy CEO’s. Meant to elicit support for healthcare legislation by generating hatred for the imaginary rich, this is standard class warfare language.

 Yet, on the other hand we are presented with a recent study, much touted by government healthcare advocates, that our current healthcare system wastes up to ‘$800 hundred billion a year’ (which coincidently at the time was exactly the same as the cost of the healthcare legislation). This waste was said to be the result of a a number of conditions, including unnecessary procedures and inefficiencies in paperwork. It would follow if the healthcare legislation could fix these cost overruns, it would practically pay for itself.

 But it only takes a minute to realize the unlikelihood that both of these arguments are generally true. If health insurers really are money-grubbing dictators trying to squeeze every last cent out of the health system, then why are they completely ignoring the waste of 800 billion dollars? Why wouldn’t they shut down those extra procedures and eliminate the paper work? That’s a lot of cash for those penny pinchers to ignore. Perhaps fixing such problems isn’t so straight forward. Indeed, the government already insures nearly half our population through Medicare and Medicaid – and it has shown no propensity to contain such costs.

 In fact, another assumption of the health reform bill is that congress will cut billions of dollars in Medicare programs in the near future. That’s great; but why haven’t they started until now? A lot of the fraud and waste is the product of the Medicare system, which is after all a government run public health insurance option – why should the electorate trust that the broader public option will create efficiencies when we already have a budget busting example of a government run program that has been anything but efficient, by the Democrats own admission?

 And finally, we come to the discussion about the public option. Perhaps the most controversial part of the current House bill, the public option will provide a government funded healthcare option, much like Medicare, for those who currently have no health insurance.

 The primary argument for this option has to do with the fact that a certain number of people in our country –either 60, 40, or 30 million people depending on the day and who is counting – don’t currently have insurance. The public option would provide for those folks who either due to lack of funds, or some pre-existing condition, have been denied private healthcare. So far so good; it’s hard to deny that basic healthcare should be more accessible.

 But the second argument is that a public option will provide ‘competition’ for the private insurers, causing them to bring down costs, and become more efficient. The problem with this though is that it is never explained how it is that insuring folks already deemed ‘uninsurable’ by the private industry will create ‘competition’; competition after all only occurs when two entities vie for a single market. Those who can’t afford insurance and those who can are in fact two different markets – so insurance companies will have no incentive to bring down costs, since they aren’t losing out by maintaining their current practices.

 The only way such a situation would be competitive is if the government were to structure the public option so that it was available to those who already had insurance, giving individuals and employers incentives to drop private insurance and adopt the ‘competitive’ (and publicly funded) public option.

 If this happened on a wide scale (and why wouldn’t it?) it would inevitably move us toward a government run, publicly funded, single payer healthcare system in our country, much like the socialized systems seen elsewhere – but I am sure that isn’t the intention behind all this at all, is it?

Another brick in the wall

I have pretty vivid memories of the Berlin Wall falling; in large part because it was the last thing I ever expected to see in my lifetime. I spent a significant part of my college years as a bit of an activist, at first on the left, and later on the right. Like a lot of people my age I felt the fear, sometimes expressed, but more often than not, that the long cold conflict we had with the Soviet Union would burst into hot war, replete with world ending bombs. That was why Reagan’s demand to Gorbachev that he “tear down this wall!” was at the same time frightening and exhilarating – it framed freedom as a gift so precious that not even the threat of annihilation could deny it. Nonetheless, I never expected to see that yearning fulfilled in my lifetime.

 Perhaps that was what made the recent 20^th anniversary celebration a rather disappointing affair. Unlike the still vivid memories of my youth the recent remarks of our President made no mention of Reagan – no mention of Thatcher, or Pope John Paul, or Lech Walesa. No mention of the Soviets or communism. He does however oddly make mention of himself as an icon of freedom:

“Few would have foreseen … that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it,”

 As President of the United States, Obama is free to set his schedule and agenda as he sees fit. If he wants he wants to personally appear to lobby to have the Olympics in Chicago and then skip out on the celebration of the one of the greatest advances of freedom in the 20^th century, that is his prerogative; however, his office doesn’t give him the liberty to re-write history, and his failure to make note of the true champions of freedom constitutes an abrogation of duty.

Life in the balance in South Dakota

Interesting news from South Dakota concerning the recent strict anti-abortion law passed in the state legislature. Opponents of the law have managed to gather the required number of signatures to place the law on the Nov. 7th ballot, allowing SD citizens the option to vote keep the law as is or have it removed from the books.

There appear to be three possible outcomes to this effort; the first being that the opponents win the day in South Dakota and the legal barriers to abortions are removed (again). In that case, they have undermined a regular argument they have made, namely that the courts must act to preserve a women's right to abort because democratic processes aren't sufficient protectors of essential rights.

The second outcome might be that the law holds up, in which case the oft repeated idea that Roe v. Wade is a 'popular' ruling will be dealt a blow.

Of course, in the case of a loss, an appeal to the Court is likely. But this is a rather circuitous route to take; normally abortion rights groups run directly to the local judge; why attempt a democratic solution first?

I suspect this is because abortion rights advocates are afraid that the tide has turned on the court; a series of appeals is more likely than ever to end with an erosion of legal support for Roe. In that case, a number of states may move to enact such laws.

Overall this seems to be a lose-lose-lose proposition for the pro-abortion bunch; they must now utilize the democratic process they have so far disdained, and in doing so, undermine their primary venue for advancing their cause – liberal pro-abortion courts.

Of course, in the interim, the greatest loss continues to be the lives of the unborn.

Last Stand in Clark County

Comes a story out of out of Las Vegas Nevada not unlike the recent events I detailed earlier in Kentucky. In this particular case, rather than banning a prayer, the school administrators took restrictions a step further; they shut off the microphone of a valedictorian when it was perceived she might voice religious sentiments, or more specifically, credit her success with it's source; faith in Christ. From the report:

She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.

But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her — Christ — her microphone went dead.

The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.

However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.

They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.

Presumably had she given praise to the public school systems, a disciplined homework regime, or positive thinking, Foothill High School Valedictorian Brittany McComb would have been free to say whatever she pleased. Indeed, had she criticized the current government, the supposed 'intolerance' of more conservative thinkers, or any other presumed enemies of the American educational system, she certainly would have been applauded by those in charge.

The ACLU, long the protector of speech, no matter how vulgar or vile, seems wholly complicitous with the administration. Allen Lichtenstein, an ACLU lawyer, who finds school dress codes to be "Orwellian" finds the systematic review and editorial removal of references to Christ to be wholly inline with the administrator's duties.

I think this is a further demonstration of the restrictive nature of the secular state. By attempting to parse the sentiments of a young woman who by all measures was a an educational success in one of the largest districts in the US, the school in all respects acts as advocate of anti-religious ideologies. Far from being neutral, the school teaches it's captive audience that the only true freedom is a godless one.

Of course, it doesn't have to be that way. My own children attend a charter school here in Minnesota. It is a fairly unique school, originally begun by home-schoolers and sponsored by a local Christian college. Even though it is a 'public' school, because of our charter system it flies under the radar of many of the restrictive policies normally found in our nation's public schools.

Last year, for our graduation ceremony, an academically accomplished young woman was asked to speak. Her story was quite amazing by all accounts; she came from a significantly broken family, her mother dealing with drug addiction and a string of bad boyfriends, her father completely absent. I remember reluctantly dropping her off at her home one time; the sagging roof, the plastic over the windows. It just didn't seem the place one would leave a child.

And yet this girl thrived, nurtured by a church family and a school that encouraged rather than opposed her faith. And for the graduation ceremony, she requested that she be able to say a prayer rather than give a speech; a request that administrators, not bound by the 9th District Court, happily allowed. What preceded was the most beautiful prayer I think I have ever heard, one that brought tears to the eyes of the most skeptical; its power being primarily in the life of a young woman whose experience had obviously exceeded the expectations of her circumstance.

It is ironic, that in our age a relativism where truths are thought to be mere personal expressions, people are allowed to express in our schools anything they percieve to be true so long as they don't really believe that it actually is.