Speaking of swearing in on relevant books, the new Governor of Massacheusetts chose to take his oath on a Bible that was a gift of freed slaves to John Quincy Adams who had fought for their release, according to the Boston Globe (Hat tip: Breaking Christian News (e-mail).
I like the symbolism involved in that.
Joe Meert, vice-president of Florida Citizens for Science has an excellent post on the current controversy about a creationist book sold in the Grand Canyon National Park bookstore and allegations that have been made that park rangers are not permitted to give an honest, scientific answer to questions about the age of the canyon.
He has found that the charges that park rangers are muzzled are false, and that the book is currently carried in the spirituality section of the bookstore. I would agree with him when he says:
In my opinion, we do a disservice to the community by making false claims to forward an agenda (either political or scientific). There is a book in the spirituality section of the Grand Canyon bookstore that has some nonsensical science and that is true. My feeling is that if people want to buy nonsensical books in order to lift their spirits, have at it. As long as the book is classified correctly (i.e. NOT science) I see no reason for trying to ban the book. Book banning should be the sole realm of despot leaders and religious fundamentalists.
there is a link in his comments that I would like to note as well:
Don’t Believe Everything You Read, written by a former park ranger.
It appears that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to congress, is also quite an effective politician. He wants to be sworn into congress holding a copy of the Qur’an, to which a number of “traditional” Christians have objected (on which more in a moment), and has chosen to do so on a copy previously owned by Thomas Jefferson. (Hat tip: Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)
I was commenting on this story to my wife and she said her first impression was that she would rather have the newly elected congressman swear his oath on a book he considers sacred thus giving it more weight. Her second thought was yet more interesting. “Didn’t Jesus say something about not swearing oaths?” So perhaps the most traditional Christians should go with “swear not at all.”
Again you have heard that it has been said by the ancients, “You shall not swear falsely, but you shall fulfill your oaths to the Lord.” But I say to you, “Don’t swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne, nor by the earth, for it is his footstool, neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king, neither shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your word be clearly yes or no. Everything more than that is from the evil one.” — Matthew 5:33-37
So maybe the answer is: Nothing!
Barack Obama has been making quite a splash in the media, and while the general reaction is often annoyed or amused, my view is that the pressures of a presidential campaign are quite adequate to test the strength of a candidate. I have not decided to support him, and besides as a registered independent voter, I don’t participate in Florida’s closed primaries, but I’m going to keep paying attention.
Thus, I read with interest the MSNBC.COM article, Obama’s past could be an issue, in which we are informed that “Senator admitted trying cocaine in memoir written 11 years ago.” Well, shock and amazement! We have a presidential candidate who overcame a past and has made himself into a fine citizen and political leader. Christians especially should have empathy with this story, because it is the quintessential story of redemption, part of the central story of our faith.
When I heard that George W. Bush had been involved in a DUI, I hoped that it would not become a factor in his election simply because it was something he had overcome. I would have preferred that it had not been hidden, but I respect the right of a person not to publicize every aspect of his past. (I had many other concerns about George W. Bush, but that wasn’t one of them.) The point I’m trying to make is that it’s not that likely we’ll find a leader with no flaws in his past, though we may not be aware of them. Further, I suspect it is not a good idea to have a leader who has led a flawless life.
In Obama’s case, however, rather than having somebody remember what he had done at the last minute, we have an excellent source. Senator Obama himself wrote a book and told about it. Again, Christians should be empathetic–he gave his testimony; he overcame the negatives and moved forward.
I have no idea who I’ll end up supporting in the presidential election a bit less than two years from now. But this bit of the past for Senator Obama will be a point in his favor–not against him.
The Christian Science Monitor reports that Uncle Sam wants US Muslims to serve and is taking positive steps to make them feel welcome in our armed services. We should do this simply because we are a society that values freedom of religion. But there is a practical side, indicated in the article–Muslims in the military have valuable language skills and knowledge of the culture in countries in which they may be called to serve. Lack of human intelligence (HUMINT) is one of our weaknesses in the war on terror.
Hat tip: Dispatches from the Culture Wars.
Nations welcome, condemn Saddam execution says the MSNBC.com headline, and the story reflects that dual reaction. There’s a large part of the world that believes Saddam Hussein is certainly deserving of punishment, but who condemn all instances of the death penalty.
As an opponent of this war from before it started, I’ve found it interesting to hear what war proponents say about me and about other opponents of the war. Some have suggested that I’m some sort of apologist for Saddam Hussein and for his regime. The one sense in which I might approach this is in saying that under Hussein, Iraq and Iran tended to neutralize one another. Both were ruled by brutal regimes, yet the rest of the world got some peace because they had to watch one another so closely. Yet I think that the one clear thing in this war is that removing Saddam from power was justified–in a vacuum–and that allowing him to be executed was appropriate, in the context of the war as it has developed.
In terms of results, there will probably be an upsurge of violence at the execution of Saddam, but I really doubt it will make the situation substantially worse. There were no terrorists just biding their time until Saddam was executed, saying, “We’ll leave them alone unless they execute him!” They already hate us and already want to blow us up. In the end, though I think it was justified, I don’t think this execution is going to make much difference.
But outside of that vacuum, it doesn’t justify the war.
(HT: The Panda’s Thumb)
The way this case is being handled illustrates why religious and traditional beliefs about the physical world should be subject to scientific testing. I don’t mean that one’s beliefs about spiritual matters need to be so tested, but when your beliefs or mine say something about the physical world, then they are testable by scientific means, and the scientific method is not merely the best method we’ve discovered to acquire accurate data about the physical world; it’s the only adequate method.
Traditional prejudices, however acquired, often blind people to facts. Who a person is, where they came from, or what their religious beliefs become more important than any factual data. I like religion, but if I allow the way I think things should be according to my theology, then I will get into the habit of denying objective evidence. Subjectivity is often good in spiritual matters, but it is bad in discovering physical reality.
These six people have been sentenced to death because they are working in a country in which people have been repeatedly schooled to deny reality in any case in which it conflicts with religious dogma or tradition. We need to save them, but we also need to correct the culpable stupidity that makes such an obviously wrong verdict possible.
Visit the Amnesty International web site for updates. Donate if you can. (Thanks to Andrea Bottaro at The Panda’s Thumb for the links.)
In my experience, political correctness is invoked more as a way to stifle requests for courtesy and consideration than it is to actually stifle freedom of speech. People here in the southern part of the country want to avoid the charge of political correctness at all costs. It’s sort of like being accused of being a whimp, lacking gun and pickup truck, and never shooting any deer.
But for me courtesy is just that–courtesy. I don’t vary my holiday greetings to match with the person I’m addressing because the political correctness monitor is going to get me. I do it because I like to greet people in the way they would like to be greeted, not in the way I want to greet them. I don’t use racial epithets because I think they’re inappropriate, not because someone made a law or because someone is looking over my shoulder.
There is an important line I’ve drawn here. I don’t want to make you use any particular greeting. I don’t want to force you to live and speak according to my standards or anyone else’s standards. In my view, free speech is not just the law–it’s a good idea! Besides the wonders that a free exchange of ideas does for truth-finding, it’s useful simply to prevent boredom. If everyone said precisely what I thought they should say at the time and in the manner in which I though they should say it, well, it would sound a lot like this sentence, and that would be dull.
But there’s a very solid line that one can cross, and that is illustrated in some policies in place at Michigan State University. You can read about these in a report from FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) (HT: Dispatches from the Culture Wars) I doubt that Michigan State University is alone in this. Ed made a number of good comments on this policy in his post. I’m looking at it for just one thing: The line!
What has happened here is simply that force has been added to political correctness, and the result is inappropriate suppression of expression. It would be fine for the university to make certain suggestions but to force the students to produce certain results is ridiculous and despicable. Hazy standards given the force of law have been the bane of religion for millenia, with an absolute certainty that when religion is given the force of law the result will be destructive of both religion and law. Now hazy standards in dialogue and discourse are similarly given the force of law, and the result will not be good.
It would be a good thing for freedom in this country if we learned to distinguish between simple courtesy–the way I want to address people–and suppression of free speech. When the force of law is placed behind the words I want to hear, then free speech is being suppressed, and nothing good will follow. This is the liberal form of despotism. A private business can choose what to permit and not to permit. A government agency cannot.
In my Bible Translations FAQ, I respond to a common question about Bible translation and about the NIV in particular. Let me quote my basic response first, and then I’ll discuss why I’m bringing this up now. No, this is not a post about Bible translation, though I’m going to use a translation issue as an illustration.
Or perhaps it had set in a long time ago. I hadn’t really meant to comment on the current uproar about the Discovery Institute’s apparent “discovery” that part of Judge Jones’s ruling in the Dover case came “almost verbatim” from the propose findings of fact from the plaintiff’s attorneys. I’m not an attorney, and I hardly consider myself qualified to discuss that. But I can read, and I can see what’s similar and what’s not, and I can smell desperation.
As a non-lawyer, some interesting questions come to mind.
