Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Different When WE Do It

    As I’ve watched the debates about various aspects of our behavior as a nation (the United States), I am very concerned with the way we seem to be able to rationalize things that normally would be totally unacceptable. The same action can be acceptable when we do it and a gross violation of justice when done by someone else. Something that is acceptable done to another person is a horrible violation of our rights if it is done to us.

    Here are just a few stray thoughts . . .

    When we grab terrorists and torture them, we are just protecting ourselves. When Russia does it in Chechnya, it’s a human rights violation.

    When we arrest someone without a warrant it’s a necessary part of defending ourselves against terrorism. When someone else does it, it’s an abuse of power.

    When we invade a country it’s preemptive defense; when someone else does it it’s naked aggression.

    This extends to our personal lives. As a nation we have a low view of congress, but we generally have a favorable view of our own congressman. We like it when our congressman brings home the pork; all those other congressmen ought to stop! We dislike attorneys as a profession, but we generally like our own attorney–at least as long as he wins.

    The other guy’s defense attorney is a sleaze who is prostituting himself to get a criminal off; our attorney is just using the best possible strategy to see to it that we get a just result.

    When we consider the justification–or more likely rationalization–for some of the things we are doing in the war on terror, we need to ask ourselves how we would react if some other country, or some other person, did the same things. I think we would find it much harder to justify these actions when done by others than when we do them.

    There is, of course, the argument that we must do these things in order to survive. But let me ask this: If I survive by lowering myself to the point of torturing someone else, just who is it that survived? Do I want to be that person?

    Who would Jesus torture?

  • Florida Science Standards Under Attack

    The new draft science standards in the state of Florida are under attack for their forthright inclusion of evolution. You can read more about the state of the debate on the Florida Citizens for Science blog. Those of us who support sound science are acquainted with the style of argumentation involved.

    I want to help make it clear that this is not a “religion vs. secularism” debate. There are a substantial number of people of faith of many persuasions who support the inclusion of the consensus scientific position in the science standards. I even know a number of ID supporters who don’t believe ID should be included in the High School science curriculum.

    Robert Crowther, contributor to the Discover Institutes EvolutionNews.org blog has even weighed in with a comment:

    I just blogged at Evolutionnews.org about this amazing development of the Florida Citizens for Science now being the sole arbiters of who is or is not a part of the “scientific community.”

    Apparently scientific inquiry is free, only so as long as you adhere to the Darwinian orthodoxy. Otherwise you will find yourself not a part of the “sceintific [sic] community.”

    This is presumably a response to this quote from Joe Wolf, president of Florida Citizens for Science:

    “It’s a PR issue,” he said. “And it’s a religious issue. In the scientific community, it’s not an issue.”

    Well, Mr. Crowther, I see the PR issue. I see the religious issue. I even see some philosophical issue. What I don’t see is the debate in the scientific community. I see a few dissidents who seem uninterested in doing science, but prefer instead to hire PR people, write popular books, and hijack other people’s research. Now PR and popular books aren’t bad, but they don’t constitute an “issue in the scientific community.”

    (Full disclosure: I am a board member of Florida Citizens for Science. The list of board members is here.)

  • A Reason Not to Vote for Huckabee

    Well, I wasn’t going to vote for [tag]Mike Huckabee[/tag] anyhow, and since I’m not Republican he’d have to get the Republican nomination before it would get on my horizon, but still here’s another reason:

    Chuck Norris has endorsed him.

    I last mentioned Chuck Norris in my post Sneaking God into Public Schools.

    On the other hand, [tag]Fred Thompson[/tag] gave what I regard as a good, thoughtful response to a question about Terri Schiavo. In general, many of the things that the media is complaining about with regard to Thompson, I regard as positives. Again, not being a Republican, I don’t have a dog in that hunt, but it’s nice to hear some thoughtful, nuanced answers. The media prefers sound bites, but the voters–and thus viewers, readers, and listeners–should demand better.

  • Burma/Myanmar Reminder

    On October 4, 2007 I participated in Free Burma Day by posting just a banner reading Free Burma and nothing else all day.

    I received an e-mail today from the U. S. Campaign for Burma, asking that we not forget what’s going on there. They mentioned several avenues for action, one of which works well for me–posting a blog entry reminding people of the situation. Very often our attention span for issues like this runs in days and weeks when actual reform requires months or years. Let’s keep paying attention.

    Check out the U. S. Campaign for Burma web site if you’re in the United States, or find organizations in your country to support.

  • Taking Care of Veterans

    I linked yesterday to a story about PTSD related discharges, and today I found this Newsweek article on problems with the [tag]Veterans Administration[/tag].

    I believe people from all across the political spectrum should be able to agree that we must take good care of our troops and our veterans.

    But I want to point out something else. The figure given in the Newsweek article is that [tag]veterans[/tag] care resulting from the wars in [tag]Afghanistan[/tag] and [tag]Iraq[/tag] will be at least six times the official estimates. I can’t confirm the accuracy of those figures, but it does fit in with a constant refrain from these wars–they cost more than is projected, and the actual cost is extremely high.

    Jesus used preparation for war as an example of the need to count the cost (Luke 14:31-32). I’m not using this as a call to cowardice, but rather as a call to use such resources as we have effectively and wisely. Just looking at the costs of the two wars we are in right now should let us know that a strategy of attacking and occupying every country that promotes terrorism in any way is not going to be cost effective. Continuing even further to reform their governments into an image that we prefer is well outside any range.

    I’ve heard Iraq advocated as a base to fight terrorism elsewhere. But what sane strategist would suggest a base that costs more resources to maintain than those that can be projected from it?

    One of these costs that must be counted is the care of veterans. It’s a moral duty. But even more it’s a practical duty. If people come to understand that if they sacrifice themselves for their country they and/or their loved ones will not be cared for properly, it will become harder and harder to find the necessary quality of troops. Loyalty will only carry people so far when it is not reciprocated.

  • New Florida Science Standards

    New science standards for [tag]Florida[/tag] public schools are now available for review (HT: Florida Citizens for Science. These look very good, but there will inevitably be conflict about the issue of evolution.

    There was also a good article on this process in the Orlando Sentinel (again HT: Florida Citizens for Science.

    Interested parties should read and comment on these standards. Though I would expect that the evolution items will generate more controversy than others, the key issue here is not evolution, but sound science education in all areas.

    Thanks to the dedicated folks who participated in writing these new standards for our state.

  • Just What We Needed: The LOLCat Bible

    Prowlog

    1 In teh land of Uz wuz a man calded Job. Teh man wuz goodz, afraid of teh Ceiling Cat and evilz.2 Teh man hadz seven sunz and tree doters,3 And lots of sheepz and camlez and rinoceruseses and servnts, srsly.4 His sunz tok turns mading cookies, and they all eated them.5 And Job wuz liek “Oh noes! Wut if cookies were sin? Gota prey, just in cased.”

    So goes the LOLCat Bible of Job 1:1-4, which the LOLCat Bible site suggests as a good example of how to translate–for the LOLCat Bible, of course!

    Perhaps someone needs a life. Then again, perhaps not …

    HT: meeyauw.

  • PTSS and Military Discharges

    This is the sort of story that makes me so angry that I want to hope it’s not really true. Fortunately, it appears a couple of senators with some substance are on the case, and hopefully will get to the bottom of this and hold some people’s feet to the fire as appropriate.

    According to an AP Report in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (HT: Thoughts from the Heart on the Left):

    After two combat tours in Iraq on a “quick reaction team” that picked up body parts after suicide bombings, Donald Schmidt began suffering from nightmares and paranoia. Then he had a nervous breakdown.

    The military discharged Schmidt last Oct. 31 for problems they said resulted not from post-traumatic stress disorder but rather from a personality disorder that pre-dated his military service.

    Assuming the facts are correct, I wouldn’t care if he did have a pre-existing condition. After two combat tours the military should be taking care of him.

    Amongst those in congress who are moving to take action, Senators [tag]Barack Obama[/tag], Senator [tag]Christopher Bond[/tag] are investigating this in the Senate, and Rep [tag]Bob Filner[/tag] in the house.

    Please read the whole St. Louis Post-Dispatch article. It has more information and the Pentagon’s response, which thus far doesn’t impress me.

  • MBWR #134

    . . . has been posted by Allan R. Bevere. I appreciate his efforts on this roundup–I regularly find thought provoking posts to read and/or respond to by that means.

  • Retelling and Rethinking the Unjust Judge

    This week’s lectionary readings included Luke 18:1-8, the story of the unjust judge. One of the problems many people have with this story is relating the unjust judge to God, but as I pointed out in a devotional one thing we are supposed to hear from the story is how God is different from the unjust judge.

    One approach I like to reading stories, and this includes historical narrative as well as parables, allegories, and fictional stories, is to retell the story for various purposes. I decided to try this after asking the question, “What happened afterward?” The widow got what she wanted, but what happened afterward. I wrote a short story based in a fantasy background, looking at that question, and posted it on my Jevlir Caravansary blog. But since that one is there for fun, I didn’t really go into any of the thinking that went into the story or how I would use it in teaching.

    I personally haven’t used this or any other stories I have written in teaching, though I’m planning to try it some time. The way I usually approach it is to call for ideas right in class, and help people use their imagination to build other stories around the one we’re studying. I think that imagination is an important element of Bible study.

    Now let me make it clear that I don’t mean that you should imagine what the story might mean and take that as the interpretation. What I suggest is that you imagine how things might be, and then use that to put the story into a context. How much like our imagained story is the original story? How is it different.

    The following questions won’t make sense if you haven’t read my short story related to Luke 18:1-8 or if you are not acquainted with the parable.

    1. Many people have trouble relating the unjust judge to God, while others don’t believe he is related at all, and that God is to be contrasted to the unjust judge. Do you find the character of Sir Frederick in the story easier or harder to relate to God? Why?
    2. Sir Carl in the story could be regarded as a God-figure in some ways. Does having a just judge in the story change your view? Why does Jesus leave the story so brief, with the questions open?
    3. Would you prefer if Jesus told stories that were a little bit longer with more things explained?
    4. How do you think other people would have reacted to the widow’s success, if we heard “the rest of the story”? Would it be similar to my short story in which they basically assume that hers was an isolated success? Can you relate this reaction or any other reaction you imagine to our responses to God and to testimonies about his care?
    5. Might the other people who were treated unjustly by the unjust judge have felt that the widow’s success was unfair?

    Finally, of course, does answering these questions, and or reading my short story change your understanding of the parable in any way? Realize, of course, that if I were actually teaching, the alternate story would be built from questions asked of the class and combined into a story as a group. That process of thinking has value in itself, I think.