Start up your sense of humor and then go read this!
HT: Kouya Chronicle.
Just a couple of things that caught my eye:
Enjoy!
. . . at The Minor Prophet. Go and enjoy! (I apologize for being late linking to this one.)
They took the time to condemn the [tag]MoveOn.org[/tag] Ad on General [tag]Petraeus[/tag] (LA Times story).
Now I don’t like the ad, and I don’t particularly like MoveOn.org, and I think private groups and politicians should go ahead and do all the condemning that the ad deserves. Though I’m an opponent of the war in Iraq, I think the ad deserves a good deal of condemning. But all of that, like the ad itself, is simply part of the free exchange of ideas that we have in this country. MoveOn.org gets to act irresponsibly; that’s their right. I get to loathe them for it; that’s my right. I get to think General Petraeus is wrong even though I loathe the ad attacking him, that’s my right. None of it is a matter for the law.
And of course one can point out to me that the Senate didn’t pass a law. It’s not binding. OK, fine. But if it’s not a law, it’s non-binding, and it just expresses their opinion, why bother doing anything about it in the Senate? This is not the only such resolution, of course, and they have varying relevance to the business of the Senate. But right now, our government lacks a coherent policy on terrorism, the president and congress are wrangling over just how to behave in Iraq, thus preserving the maximally nasty situation in which we hold on, but with no reason to expect success. At the end of the fiscal year, the Senate will be running out of time to accomplish important business like appropriations bills.
And here they are condemning an ad. Let them condemn (or condone) ads on their own time out on the campaign trail. That’s where it belongs.
Just a couple of links. MSNBC has a pretty good story on the [tag]Jena 6[/tag] here, though that story also duplicates quite a bit of previous coverage.
Laura at Pursuing Holiness, who first alerted me to this story continues to be quite balanced, reading huge amounts and being quite willing to call people on either side for excesses. She has a good post today titled The Media Circus and Alan Bean. It’s an interesting picture that’s portrayed there.
Why am I blogging about this at all? It’s pretty simple. I think it’s an important story. Someone called my attention to it, and I want to make sure that others notice as well. [tag]Racism[/tag] is not dead in this country. But also law enforcement agencies have a great deal of power and discretion, and we the people need to keep our eyes on them. Support them, yes, but also expect integrity and fairness.
My own knowledge on this is second hand, but I’m linking to folks who have information that comes closer to the source. Read up and be informed, and help find those other cases where someone is being treated unfairly, but doesn’t have this type of support. It has to start somewhere.
Reformed Chicks Blabbing reports that [tag]James Dobson[/tag] won’t support [tag]Fred Thompson[/tag], with the last straw apparently being his support for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage that falls well short of conservative hopes. I now see what I missed before. Thompson supports an amendment that prevents states from being forced to recognize gay marriages from other states. Social conservatives want to ban gay marriage completely.
I would suggest that federalism is a balance, and that the “full faith and credit” clause is not something that should be done away with lightly. Since one can move freely from state to state, just what is a gay couple married in Massachusetts, for example, supposed to do if work moves them to Alabama? (I resist the suggestion that they flee the country or at least change jobs rather than make such a move!) Nonetheless I find Thompson’s approach far more rational than that of other Republicans.
I found an interesting quote in this MSNBC story on the [tag]Jena 6[/tag] that explains why I have been very concerned about this event from when I first read about it. (I have been following this mostly via Pursuing Holiness, with her latest post here, and only occasionally reading other stories.)
Here’s the quote:
The white teen who was beaten, Justin Barker, was knocked unconscious, his face badly swollen and bloodied, though he was able to attend a school function later that night.
. . . yet the initial charge was attempted murder. I don’t see how the prosecutor can say this with a straight face:
This case has been portrayed by the news media as being about race, he said. And the fact that it takes place in a small southern town lends itself to that portrayal. But it is not and never has been about race. It is about finding justice for an innocent victim and holding people accountable for their actions.
No, it’s not about holding people accountable–it’s about losing one’s sense of proportion. Should they young men involved in such a beating be held accountable? Certainly. Is an attempted murder charge “accountability” for what they did? No, it’s well out of balance. Bluntly, the [tag]racism[/tag] is clearly present.
I also don’t buy the whine that there was nothing that could be done about the kids who hung the nooses. That indicates a severe lack of creativity. The assumption appears to be that if you can’t charge those kids under a law, there is nothing that can be done. But the school and the town definitely could have done something, had they taken the event seriously. (And no, they should go over the top about that either. “Deal with” doesn’t necessarily mean “go nuts.”)
I hope that the rally today will shake some people up and make them look inside themselves and reconsider their attitudes. Probably most will simply become more angry, but I can always hope!
Joe Carter is losing some of his first love for [tag]Fred Thompson[/tag]. He says:
Now I’m not so certain. His views of the federal marriage amendment, the Schiavo case, and his general position on federalism are troubling. For me, conservatism trumps federalism, while the position Thompson endorses seem to reverse that order.
On the fundamental point, I agree with Carter. [tag]Federalism[/tag] is not essentially conservative or liberal. It’s simply a way that we divide power. But I must say that this tendency on the part of Thompson, of which I wasn’t aware, makes me much more likely to look at him myself. I’m afraid I don’t see why conservatives would be annoyed by his view on the [tag]federal marriage amendment[/tag] (I would oppose any federal amendment on this issue), and his view on the Schiavo case, insofar as I’ve read it, is right on.
I’m an advocate of federalism, and even believe we should roll back a significant amount of the centralization that we have done thus far, and I’m somewhere center-left on social issues and lean libertarian otherwise. I guess that makes me a poster child for the “federalism is not essentially conservative” view.
The main reason I wanted to call attention to this post, however, is because it expresses conservative goals much more clearly than many others. Some believe that one should vote for conservatives as a way to support federalism. In fact, social conservatives see their socially conservative goals as more important than the constitutional form of government and the 10th amendment in particular.
Mark Olson responded to my post Why the Creation-Evolution Controvery is Important with a post of his own, Barbarians at the Gate. It appears that was his gentle way of telling me that I’m a bit over the top, at least about my comment on the assault on the integrity of science. Kudos to Mark for method! I don’t see any barbarians, or at least I see only barbarians acting in a very civilized way, but I do see some danger.
I would first like to point out that I said what I said in the context of the case of Dr. Richard Colling at Olivet Nazarene University (start with Where Teaching the Controversy is Prohibited). I didn’t specify that in my own post, because I was responding to some of the responses I received to my posting on that issue. Where precisely is this “assault on integrity” going on? I believe it is happening in Christian churches.
I’m not, however, talking about the dearth of Biblical knowledge, though I do think that is a problem. I’m talking about the way in which some Christians try to pressure other Christians into accepting a war between religion an science–a war which is quite unnecessary. The most guilty parties are advocates of young earth creationism, but old earth creationists join in when the target is theistic evolutionists, and the ID crowd joins right in.
I’ve already expressed by view on this a few times before and particularly in more recent discussions of the situation at Olivet Nazarene University. But I lived this in my own life. There was certainly no effort to “teach the controversy” in my Seventh-day Adventist education. The entire effort was to indoctrinate me as a young earth creationist. I had very little idea what evolutionary theory actually was even after I received my graduate degree.
But there is something faintly amusing to me about getting painting as one proclaiming there are barbarians at the gates. The ID movement is one of the noisiest “suppressed” movements out there. They are truly claiming that the barbarians are at the gates–in this case “Darwinist” barbarians. But is that cry justified?
I think it is not. First, of course, they seem to have an abundance of ways in which to make themselves heard. Second, they are not taking the appropriate road to scientific recognition, which is the production of science.
There are two ways to obscure truth. On the one can attempt to suppress those who speak it. But on the other hand we can present so many untested things as truth that it’s hard to determine what is valid and what is not. In order to prevent the second of these, we have peer-reviewed journals and we have results that can be replicated by other scientists. Those are the proper gateways through which thing should pass to become part of the general body of science.
As a counter to that restriction we have free flow of information generally. The ID advocates who feel that they are being suppressed can write and publish books, they can write blogs, and everyone who wants can read. They can assault the gates of science all they want. That is freedom of speech. But it is essentially also freedom of speech for those scientists who peer-review the literature and who try to replicate results to say, “No, this doesn’t meet the standard.” The rest of us get to decide who we will believe.
Someone is bound to ask then why I don’t think Olivet Nazarene University is within their rights to suppress Dr. Richard Colling? Of course they are within their rights. They are a privately funded university, and they can set their own standards. They might fall afoul of accreditation committees, but that has not proven too much of a problem for many, many schools who would not allow the teaching of evolution as valid.
But this is the church. You see, I care more about the church than I do about the rest of the world. I’m a Bible teacher. That’s where I live and work. It’s important to me. When I see there’s a problem with integrity in the world, I am concerned. When I see it in the church, that’s striking close to home.
People who have gone to secular universities rarely understand my point on this. They feel that they spent their lives fighting for recognition, and that any religious ideas are suppressed in that atmosphere. Personally I suspect them of being a bit over the top, but I can’t be sure. You see, I never spent a day in a public school classroom. I’m part home schooled, part private schooled, and all Christian schooled.
I would like Christian education to be ahead of everyone else, and to represent the very best that there is to offer. I’d like to see better training in all fields, but especially in science. If there is any place where Christians should demonstrate a sound education, rather than a thorough indoctrination it is in our church educational systems, from Sunday School to church sponsored universities.
To do that we need to model free inquiry. Exploration not indoctrination.