The Brooks

I may not agree with scientology, but this is a clear case of discrimmination. What the heck does making a movie about the plot to assassinate Hitler have to do with scientology anyways?

Mark Shea on a major problem with libertarianism (HT):

The libertarian tends to remember that government is a menace due to the fall. He does not tend to remember that he is a menace due to the fall. He wants freedom from government so that he can do whatever the hell he wants. And frequently, he wants hell.

Peter Leithart:

Israel is Egypt. For Israel to become Israel again, she had to go back out to the wilderness, where John ministers, and she’s going to have to cross the Jordan all over again. Wrath is coming on Israel/Egypt, and only those who repent and receive the baptism of repentance will survive the burning. John’s baptism is the blood on the doorposts that marks the homes of Israel, protecting the marked ones while the angel of death destroys the Egyptians who have taken over the promised land.

Rich Bledsoe nails it (HT):

While we may have some complaints about the Stoicism of our parents’ and grandparents’ generation, they were not whiners and they expected life to be tough. We are comparatively spoiled brats who are sure that a bruise is worse than death because we are we. After all, all our parents and grandparents achieved was to live through the Great Depression, defeat the Nazis and Fascists, come home to build the greatest economy in the history of the world, and then defeat Communism. We went to Woodstock, destroyed our universities, and learned to play video games. And it’s pretty clear which of those is the greater achievement, and we are damn proud of it.

Over at paedocommunion.com, Matt Colvin has written a great piece on how “self-examination” (dokimazo) in 1 Corinthians 11:28 does not mean introspectively looking into one’s own being. If this is true, the strongest argument against paedocommunion vanishes into thin air.

Rod Dreher inadvertently makes a strong case for Christian schooling.

One of my old professors at Tyndale, Craig Carter, has written a great post on homosexual rights here.

Carter points out that what homosexual activists mean by marriage is not the same thing as what most North Americans mean by marriage. Essential to the common (Christian) definition of marriage is a commitment to exclusivity and an openness to children. Carter points out that both of these are no more than options for members of the homosexual community who are pushing for full marriage rights. For many activists “personal fulfillment is the sum total of the meaning of human sexuality.” 

“Male homosexuality, in particular, is a glorification of promiscuity and the meaning of conferring the title of “marriage” on homosexual relationships is to put a social stamp of approval on the homosexual lifestyle.”

Carter wrote this post in response to a book by Randall Balmer entitled Thy Kingdom Come: An Evangelical’s Lament. Balmer believes that the church has been on the wrong side of many issues in the past such as slavery, divorce, the ordination of women, etc. His plea is for evangelicals to get on the “right” side of the homosexual issue. Balmer believes that eventually all will come around to seeing the gay rights position as correct. Carter demurs. He believes that many who are attracted to liberalism will not be able to adopt this position when fully enfleshed. I’m not so sure.

Peter Leithart on assurance.

George Bush has repeatedly declared that we can depend on the moderate voices of Islam. But, how strong is that moderate voice? Tony Blankley has written a column on the moderate Muslim scholar Dr. Akbar Ahmed. Dr. Ahmed has bad news for George Bush (HT):

Even one or two years ago, I think Dr. Ahmed was reasonably hopeful that his views had a fighting chance around the Islamic world. So, my jaw dropped when I got to page 192 of his new book and he described his thoughts while in Pakistan last year on his investigative journey: “The progressive and active Aligarth model had become enfeebled and in danger of being overtaken by the Deoband model … I felt like a warrior in the midst of the fray who knew the odds were against him but never quite realized that his side had already lost the war.” He likewise reported from Indonesia — invariably characterized as practicing a more moderate form of Islam. There, too, his report was crushingly negative. Meeting with people from presidents to cab drivers, from elite professors to students from modest schools (Dr. Ahmed holds a respected place in the Muslim firmament around the globe), reports that 50 percent want Shariah law, support the Bali terrorist bombing, oppose women in politics, support stoning adulterers to death. Indonesia’s secular legal system and tolerant pluralist society is being “infiltrated by Deoband thinking … Dwindling moderates and growing extremists are a dangerous challenging development.” Although I dissent from several of Dr. Ahmed’s characterizations of the Bush Administration, Washington policymakers and journalists should read this book because it delivers a terrible message of warning both to those who say things aren’t as bad as Bush says, and we can rely on the moderate voices of Islam — with a little assist from the West — winning; and for those who argue for aggressive American action to show our strength to the Muslims (because, in Bin Laden’s words, they follow the strong horse).

With all that said, the moderate Muslim voice does seem to be very strong in North America. Hopefully, this will not change.

According to the Grope and Flail (humour courtesy of Dan Gouge), the European Union’s main human rights body issued a report with some interesting implications for the future of creationism in Europe:

• “The campaign against evolution has its roots “in forms of religious extremism” and is a dangerous attack on scientific knowledge”
• The report says that “The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies.”
• “Today, creationists of all faiths are trying to get their ideas accepted in Europe,” the report said. “If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights.“

Creationism could become a threat to human rights? What the heck? Creationism is a threat to scientific knowledge? Ludicrous. Regardless of what you believe about evolution, the teaching of alternate theories that critique evolution can surely not be called unscientific. What is unscientific is not allowing a scientific model to be critiqued. Whatever happened to the testing and retesting of hypotheses?

All this goes to show that there is much more at stake with the teaching of evolution than the science per se. What is really at stake are people’s worldviews. For many people, evolution functions as a sort of religious presupposition. In a Kuhnian sense, evolution can never be tested or critiqued. It is the standard by which all other facts are evaluated. It determines what is acceptable and unacceptable “scientific” thought.

So much for the “free-thinker.”