John O'Sullivan's "review" of Ramesh Ponnuru's new book is a must read

Find it here

He has hit the nail on the head, as the saying goes, when he says " what people think about abortion is strongly influenced by what they know."

Roe and Doe together allow a woman and her doctor to have a legal abortion for any reason at any time before birth and arguably even during birth. The courts have confirmed this in countless cases but especially in those striking down state and federal laws to prohibit or regulate “partial birth abortion”—i.e., the procedure in which a baby is partly delivered and, while in the birth canal, has his or her skull crushed and his or her brains sucked out.

Most Americans don’t know this is legal. If they did, they would oppose it. We reasonably infer this from the 2003 Gallup poll that 68 percent of Americans thought that abortion should be “generally illegal” in the second trimester, let alone the third. This popular opposition has grown slowly but steadily for at least the last decade.

But in Britian, where abortion on demand through all trimesters is not a constitutional right one can read, according to O'Sullivan:

The London Sunday Telegraph said in a recent editorial: “The elimination of abortion is not a practical possibility. Its reduction, however, is a moral necessity.” MPs are considering the introduction of non-government bills to achieve that.

Link to it above and read the entire thing.

Stewards of the Earth

The Psalmist says, "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." Add that spiritual insight to the Christian doctrine of creation, in which God makes the world out of nothing and places in the midst of the world human beings in the image of God to be the means of God's care giving presence over the world (Genesis 2). You begin to establish the basis for a pretty substantial theology of Christian "environmental" stewardship. When one considers further that the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection are both divine affirmations of the goodness of creation, with the Resurrection entailing a reclamation of the created order (See Oliver O'Donnovan's Resurrection and Moral Order for a wonderful theological assessment in this regard), Christians have no excuse for not being interested in environmental concerns.

That's what makes the situation described here all the more troubling. In The Denver Post David Harsanyi reports on the doctrinaire orthodoxy that has stopped genuine debate about global warming, especially in the wake of Al Gore's resurgent influence via his new movie.

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions. . . . .

"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Yes, Christians are theologically compelled to be concerned about the environment and any serious and credible threat that "global warming" presents. And we are compelled to be repentant if human activity has indeed triggered it. But, how shall that ever be known unless there is a genuine debate over the actual science.

In order to be good stewards over the world in which we have been placed, we need to know the facts of our situation. That can't happen if genuine dissent and intellectual inquiry are short-circuited. Christians are also interested in truth -- about God, human beings, and the world. So, be a good steward of God's world and our home. Start by educating yourself about the diversity of opinion on this issue. Try this for starters.

Oh, No! Now there's a "science" that studies people who get "pissed-off"

This is zany, to me. A new "study" released has decided that road rage behavior is attributable to a cognitive condition. Intermittent explosive disorder.

Here's a bit:

"People think it's bad behavior and that you just need an attitude adjustment, but what they don't know ... is that there's a biology and cognitive science to this," said Dr. Emil Coccaro, chairman of psychiatry at the University of Chicago's medical school.

Road rage, temper outbursts that involve throwing or breaking objects and even spousal abuse can sometimes be attributed to the disorder, though not everyone who does those things is afflicted.

By definition, intermittent explosive disorder involves multiple outbursts that are way out of proportion to the situation. These angry outbursts often include threats or aggressive actions and property damage. The disorder typically first appears in adolescence; in the study, the average age of onset was 14.

Here's the problem as I see it with this kind of "science." If not everyone who intermittently explodes has the affliction, how does one know who does and who doesn't. Secondly, how does one conclude that a condition is environmentally induced or a matter of one's chemistry? Thirdly, the psychiatric guild is bent, for the most part, on treating persons as a set of chemical interactions. (It's good for the pharmaceutical industry.) Fourth, what if the problem is not people's chemistry, but society's inhumane pace that a prompts this tendency in some people to manifest itself. At an earlier time in history, maybe there were social outlets that no longer really exist today. Is it not possible that some of the persons who settled the West might have been prone to violence and what promted them to migrate was the thought of not haveing to deal with people in urban settings?

So. . . . scientists have found out that some people have worse tempers than others. Well, my grandmother knew that and as she would say: 'Bless their hearts, they just need some time to settle down."

Modern society does not afford that for persons. High stress jobs plus high stress commutes plus high stress families plus high stress. . . . Something has got to give.

Come Holy Spirit, and you shall renew the face of the earth.

Christopher Hitchens on Religion, the War on Terror, and Morality

The great "anti-theist" (his own self-description), Christopher Hitchens has a very good interview in World Magazine. What do you think that an educated Christian might have to say to Mr. Hitchens? If there are any takers on this question, in a few days I'll post my own thoughts.

Here's the article

What's the effect of the Da Vinci Code?

Richard John Neuhaus reports HERE at least about its effect among Roman Catholics.

In any event, Catholic New York invites us to be cheered by the finding that only 33 percent of Catholic adults in the United States think that the faith as taught by the Church is or may be a hoax perpetrated by a corrupt church leadership.

If you have ever wondered why Border Collies make bad seeing eye dogs.......

Click here

Andrew Sullivan shares his "wisdom" on marriage, yet again (sigh)

Here's the link

AND HERE'S THE QUOTE
It was a little trippy last night at the 92d Street Y. Sitting with an old friend, Dan Savage, and a seventies icon, Erica Jong, talking about sex in front of a few hundred Upper East Side denizens is not something you do every day. I said the f-word first, I'm happy to say, and after that, it was all downhill. For me the interesting point came when Dan and I agreed that moderate hypocrisy - especially in marriages - is often the best policy. Momogamy is very hard for men, straight or gay, and if one partner falters occasionally (and I don't mean regularly), sometimes discretion is perfectly acceptable. You could see Jong bridle at the thought of such dishonesty. But I think the post-seventies generation - those of us who grew up while our parents were having a sexual revolution - both appreciate the gains for sexual and emotional freedom, while being a little more aware of their potential hazards. An acceptance of mild hypocrisy as essential social and marital glue is not a revolutionary statement. It's a post-revolutionary one. As is, I'd say, my generation as a whole.

Well, there are a few of things that ought to be said. First, he is correct that his is not a "revolutionary" position. Indeed, it is conventional in our culture. So conventional is it that it could pass on the "Upper East Side" as quite hip, not to be explored or questioned.

This leads to the second thing that must be said. Perhaps it is difficult for men to be monogamous. But, one could well ask, why. I think it boils down to one pitiful issue. Western men are incredibly insecure. Living in a world that neither demands greatness from men nor rewards real heroism, men become lost in a pathetic fantasy of sexual exploits to make them feel that they are truly masculine.

The other thing that plays into male "wandering" (even if it is seldom or one-time) is the profound loss of intimacy that our sex-obsessed culture has bequeathed us. When sex was unfettered -- medically first and the legally in Roe v. Wade -- from the inherent possibility of children and responsibility for the mother of one's progeny, the necessary prerequisite for seriousness (not somberness) about sexuality and its pleasures was lost. With the loss of seriousness (that is evidenced in some men) came a loss of respect for women and with that loss the foundation for real intimacy was lost. And women did not help their cause by seeking to immulate the worst features of maleness.

I recall G. K. Chesterton's quip about his lack of temptation to other women. Paraphased he said, I was never tempted by the thought of having other women, because the reality of really having one was more than I ever dreamed of.

One can't help but wonder what a secure man seeking greatness and truly valuing and respecting the woman who respected him in return and who engaged life together seriously might do to Sullivan's paradigm. Maybe in his world, however, seriousness and intimacy are quaint and disposable commodities.

A Great article on Taking God's Name in Vain

An old classmate, Lawson Stone, who teaches at Asbury Theological Seminary, has written a very good article on the meaning of the 3rd commandment.

Find it HERE

Congress and the President

I've been thinking about this latest spat between the legislative branch and the executive branch over the recent search of Congressman Jefferson's offices. READ HERE

Of course, at stake is the separation of powers that the constitution establishes. I don't claim to know how to sort out all the legal and constitutional questions here. But, I have been considering the genius of the framers of the constitution. Perhaps they broke up the governance of the country into three separate but equal branches of government not merely to avoid the threat of tyranny, but to insure a continual gridlock.

Tom Jefferson, Jim Madison, Benny Franklin and the gang intuited that separate but equal branches of government would constantly covet the powers of the other branches and would, as well, resent the limits that the existence of the others imposed on them. That would mean that the government would spend a great deal of time fighting with itself. So, the government would not have time to hassle its citizens. The only time that such in-fighting would cease would be in moments of dire national emergency or national interest. Then the limited government would have to work together. I think that the proponents of self-rule and personal liberty would have liked the present conflict.

The only down side -- that our framers did not have to face -- is the modern day reality of a federal income tax. A federal government that takes our money by force and then wastes it really rubs us the wrong way. That is an important, but separate issue. But, lets not be to hasty to hope that the politicians in D.C. get along. Let them fight. It is good for freedom.

The Way It Should Be, Right?

The New York Times has THIS article about the new strategy that coastal states have for dealing with the threat to life and limb that hurricanes present.

As it turns out, the strategy boils down to this -- TAKE CARE OF YOU AND YOURS!

From the article:

This save-yourselves approach comes after government agencies were overwhelmed by pleas for help after last year's storms and strongly criticized as not responding swiftly or thoroughly enough to the public need. Now, officials have said repeatedly, only the elderly, the poor and the disabled should count on the government to help them escape a hurricane or endure its immediate aftermath.

Mississippi, where more than 200 residents died in Hurricane Katrina, unrolled a "Stay Alert. Stay Alive" hurricane awareness campaign in April. State officials told residents what to pack in a "go-kit" for evacuating (flashlight, radio, nonelectric can opener) and, like many others, commanded them to stockpile at least three days' worth of water and food.

Horry County, S.C., home to Myrtle Beach, held a hurricane exposition last month and is giving similar presentations at Kiwanis clubs and homeowners associations.

"The big shortfall is complacency with the community," said Randall Webster, director of Horry County Emergency Management. "Our main theme is, take interest as an individual and make preparations."

That is the way it should be, if you ask me. The responsibility of every healthy citizen, especially Christian citizens who claim to be concerned for the weak and sick, is to be ready to haul you and all those for whom you are responsible out of harms way. IF all the able-bodied persons plan now for this, then the precious and precarious resources of the federal government can be concentrated on the needy. To fail to plan ahead is not simply complacency it is a lack of caring about ones neighbors.

Dr. Kevorkian has second thoughts about his past

Here's the story

He was called Dr. Death by many. NOw he thinks his decisions to act unlawfully were wrong, not just legally, but strategically. He does not seem to have second thoughts about so-called "death with dignity."

He has, himself, been told that he has about a year to live, due to liver failure. One wonders if coming face-to-face with his own mortality might give him pause about the act of ending others' lives. At least, one hopes so.

Dr. Kevorkian has second thoughts about his past

Where is Tom Jones When You Need Him!

The Welsh crooner, Tom Jones, had a big hit back in the "ancient days" of the 1970's -- "She's a Lady" was its title. Well, a recent study has found that traditional lady-like behavior is on the wane in the case of teenage girls. Here's a bit of the article that reports it.

Professor Colin Pritchard, who led the research, said: 'Girls now significantly smoke and binge-drink more than boys. They truant, steal and fight at similar rates, and start under-age sex earlier than boys.'

He said binge-drinking, which was admitted by nearly a third of girls in their early teenage years, drove other anti-social behaviour such as stealing, fighting, taking drugs and engaging in risky sex.

'There is an element of following role models set by the media,' he said 'We can look back to the Spice Girls where girls were set an example in which aggressive behaviour was considered praiseworthy.

'It is also the case that girls are expected to behave differently today than they were in the past, and that has affected the of boys too.'

The study comparison found that the number of boys admitting to smoking has nearly halved to just over a quarter, while the number of girls who smoke has risen to nearly half. The number of girls who admit having smoked cannabis has gone up nearly fourfold, to one in five.

(READ MORE)

Of course, there are those who will celebrate this as liberation for young women. But, it is a sad commentary about the values of those who see it as such. For anyone to argue that copying behavior that was (and still is by many feminists) considered to be the worst behavior of young men is liberating for young women is, to my mind, silly if it weren't so serious.

For the last 40 years certain segments of the American intelligencia have sought to make boys less "boyish. It seems as though the results are that girls have become more "boyish."

Anyone who thinks that a young woman who smokes and drinks to excess and makes herself available to a variety of young men (or womesn) sexually will be treated with respect is, in the long run, out of touch with reality.

When I was a kid there was a rhyme that went like this:

What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice and everything nice

What are little boys made of? Snakes and snails and puppy dog tails.

Well, not anymore. More's the pity for the girls.

The Da Vinci Code and the Church. . . .

Well, much is made about the release of the movie The Da Vinci Code. A lot of film critics don't like it as a movie. And a whole cottage industry debunking it has been established. Just go to your local bookstore.

Serious scholars have debunked it. Take N.T Wright for example.

My take on it is that the Da Vinci Code is just the latest eruption of gnosticism that has always plagued the orthodox faith. In an article on the "Code" I wrote for a print journal, I argue for the comparison between the kind of religious faith called forth by believers in the Da Vinci Code outlook and early gnosticism.

Just as Gnosticism presented a serious confrontation to the early Christian witness, The Da Vinci Code evinces one side of a cultural continental divide that exists in current day American and European spiritually. On the one hand there is the historic claim of Christianity, which insists that the answers and hopes of our lives are found in the reality of the transcendent God who has acted in history through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Christ’s virgin conception, his sacrificial death, and his resurrection are central to God’s grace at work to give redeem his fallen creation. Hence, the answers to life’s most pressing and critical questions are not found within ourselves, but are located in the will and mind of our Creator-Redeemer God. So, our hope is to look outside ourselves. This search is carried out in the context of a community of repentant and seeking disciples.

But the other slope of the divide implies an entirely different spiritual and theological landscape. In this other and competing perspective – the new Gnosticism – the secret of ‘salvation’ and fulfillment is found by looking within oneself for divine illumination and wisdom. Tragically, this move is profoundly dehumanizing, because it cuts us off from the essentially communal nature that we as humans are made for. The central spiritual and moral imperative is to be true to what you find within yourself and to whom you really are. However, I do not need anyone else to be true to the inner subjectivity of my own illumination, nor do you. Seeking to find meaning, this orientation, which The Da Vinci Code appeals to, removes me from the community of longing and discovery for which humans are made.

And yet, honesty demands that we not be shocked that many are drawn to this kind of ‘Christianity.’ In many instances, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ does not have an admirable track record of living its radical faith as a community of disciples longing for God. Evangelical Christians, for instance, have tended to be too individualistic and subjective about faith. Hence, we know very little about the historical doctrines of the Faith. We have failed at times to worship the Jesus who is a historic figure – God Incarnate. In so doing we have forgotten that the Church’s historic affirmation, “Jesus is Lord,” was a claim that Caesar was not Lord. Jesus was and is a claim to our total allegiance, but the Church has often relegated him to the role of one who just provides us forgiveness for our sins and a promise of heaven. As well, and tragically, the world has not seen vibrant Christianity that changes the way disciples live on a day to day basis. In the absence of a true witness people are prey for all kinds of false substitutes, especially those that flatter our egos about how special we are deep down inside. And theories such as Brown’s that put sex up front and central to the life of the author of Christianity appeal to the sex-obsessed culture of contemporary America.

How shall people know that there is a real alternative to the self-actualization Gnosticism of our overly eroticized society? The Da Vinci Code when it comes out in theatres will certainly require of faithful Christians that we bear witness to its falsehood. In bearing such a witness we must, as well, be ready to defend the historic nature of the four Gospels and the traditional Christian faith. But that will not be enough. Even more, the Church must be ready to bear witness to the Truth. This will mean repentance over the false versions of Jesus that we have worshipped and that we have presented to the world. We must be ready to follow his Lordship and orient all of our lives around his way. Perhaps then the truth of the Gospel will be believable again to a non-Christian world. Like our ancient fathers and mothers in the faith, we must live for Jesus with all that we are. They died in persecution for their faith, gladly in many instances, because they first and foremost the LIVED for Christ each moment. Their witness ultimately won an empire. Our moment calls us to live for him as they did.

Gospel and Immigration?

Here is a very good article on the immigration question and how a Christian conservative might need to think about it.

Here's a taste

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked the authority of Jesus himself to oppose a Republican-sponsored House resolution aimed at cracking down on those who aid and abet the smuggling of aliens across the Mexican border. “It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably Jesus himself,” Mrs. Clinton claimed Read more

A very sad note

The wife of Christopher Reeves has died

Wow, life really brings to some people more than their share of hardship. What does you theology say about such a turn of things?

Small Town Voter Fraud

. . . . .in my home town no less.

I grew up in a little coal mining town in southwestern Virginia named Appalachia, appropriately enough. Well, some of the folks I knew growing up there, have been indicted for rigging an election. 14 people and over 900 counts in the indictment. Here's the story for those who are interested in the impact of corruption even in small out of the way places that the rest of the country rarely thinks about.

Conservatisism and Christianity!!!

For those who are conservative by political intuition or considered opinion, you really should pay attention to the brewing cauldron of debate going on at Nation Review online The CRUNCHY CON BLOG.

Rod Dreher and his compadres are suggesting that political and economic conservativism, in and of themselves, are inadequate for the life of a people and a nation. Jonah Goldberg does not like it.

My take on this is that Dreher and others are contending for a Christian view of the world that is more in keeping with the New Testament scriptures. They see need for God in all of life, for community as a value in itself, and simplicity rather than consumption as the style of life.

Political and economic conservatives don't share that view as a matter of principle. Of course, some political and economic conservatives might embrace something like those principles. But those principles are no more a part of P & E conservatism per se than the Apostle's Creed is its ethos.

So, the so-called "Crunchy Con" phenomenon is, I think, uncovering the reality that evangelical and traditionalist Christians cannot make unqualified cause with political and economic conservativism.

FOR SHAME

Rabbi Berel Wein hits the sweet spot, to use a golfing metaphor in THIS article on the proper place for shame in a culture and a person's life.

However, over the last half century, the Western world has pretty much abandoned any sense of shame in public or private behavior. Thus, the current slogan of all malefactors caught in shameful behavior is "to tough it out" and brazenly ignore one's own shameful deeds. There is very little sense of shame left in public or political life, in academia and the arts or even in the religious leadership sectors of our society.

Shame has fled from the scene in the entertainment industries. There is no longer shameful speech or attire, attitude or even behavior. We have no longer any higher expectations of our leaders so therefore they have no sense of shame when they actually meet our very low expectations of them and their personal and public behavior. The sense of honor and pride so necessary for effective and inspired public leadership has disappeared from our world to be replaced by a crassness and insensitivity to moral standards and to a traditional sense of selfless purpose.

And Peggy Noonan in THIS article on being a lady in the moder world of American values is speaking to the same loss.

In a post-Christian therapeutic culture that has been thoroughly Oprahized and has been desensitized by the likes of Jerry Springer and is lectured about the importance of healthy self-image, the concept that SHAME could be a good thing is a hard sell. But, it is, nonetheless, true.

Shame, far from being a negative thing, can be a reminder of two ennobling thoughts about ourselves. 1) We are more than animals and have a God-given dignity that means some behaviors should give us, at least, serious pause. 2) We do not live and act in an isolated vacuum, but instead have an impact on others with all our actions and attitudes. Both things remind us, we are not alone! God is with us and calls us to holy things. Others depend upon us.

Of course, for those who think anything that limits their own desires is a negative thing, none of that is good news.

The Face of EVIL

Charles Cullen is being sentenced Thursday to life in prison for 22 New Jersey murders and attempted murders of three others.

Cullen has pleaded guilty to a total of 29 murders and six attempted murders in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and has told investigators he might have killed as many as 40 people.

That's what this report says. I

I was struck by one of the things that was said in another article:

Thursday's hearing was the first chance for victims' relatives to confront Cullen in court, and about 60 appeared. Many were also hoping to hear Cullen explain why he committed the crimes, but his public defender has said that was unlikely.

Cullen, wearing a black sweater over a collared shirt, sat quietly with his arms folded in front of him after he was brought into the courtroom. As relatives of victims spoke, he kept his eyes closed, frustrating some of the relatives.

ME: There are people who must be labeled evil in this world. For those of us with a Christian worldview, that does not mean that they are worthless or inhuman. It means that they have become something that no human being is meant to be come. That is what causes us to recognize the evil that is in them. Shutting eyes and folding arms is the posture of one who says don't bother me with your petty emotions.

The question is what is society to do with these evil persons. This guy is probably the poster child for death-penalty advocates.