Persecution

Michelle Malkin points us to a chilling post on JihadWatch which suggests that the murder of a Coptic Christian family in New Jersey was a premeditated act of deception and religious persecution.

The Armanious family had inspired several Muslims to convert to Christianity — or thought they had. These converts were actually practicing taqiyya, or religious deception, pretending to be friends of these Christians in order to strengthen themselves against them, as in Qur'an 3:28: "Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful -- he that does this has nothing to hope for from Allah -- except in self-defense."

Most of us do not want to make generalizations about Muslims. But we need to be frank about a few things. The radical Islamicists are waging a war which we cannot put in conventional categories.

1. They are willing to target civilians
2. They have no identifiable organized government with which we can deal.
3. They will use any and all manner of deception to accomplish their goals, including media manipulation.
4. They are not only willing, but often desirous of death in their cause.

As a result, we have a difficult task. There is no particular country which we can approach diplomatically. The enemy generally will not be dressed in a military uniform and will hide behind civilians. We will need counterintelligence like never before in history to anticipate their strategies. We cannot expect mercy or rational actions from front line combatants from the other side and though we will not wish to use inhumane tactics, we cannot expect them reciprocate.

This is a stealthy and ruthless enemy. I am personally thankful we have a president who has understood that this war is not a conventional one and has been willing to take the heat for decisions he has made from those who still want to categorize the war on terror in conventional terms. GWs occasional conciliatory comments about the peacefulness of Islam aside, he at least understands the nature of the war itself is unconventional.

But I wonder what it will take for most of us to be willing to say this is a religious war which they have declared. To quote Aragorn from the Two Towers, "Open war is upon us, whether we would risk it or not."

Illinois to Potentially Force Churches to Hire Gays

As an Illinois resident, I was somewhat taken aback to learn from WorldNetDaily that our illustrious governor has signed into law a bill which could require churches to hire homosexuals.
As usual, the bill purports to be a civil rights advance, but according to the article:

"...IFI Executive Director Peter LaBarbera notes the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Carol Ronen, D-Chicago, is on record stating it should be applied to churches, meaning they would not be allowed, for example, to reject a job applicant who practices homosexual behavior. "

More information is also available at the website of the Illinois Family Institute, which reports"

"The Illinois law firm Ungaretti & Harris, which specializes in labor and employment issues, published an analysis of SB 3186 that states (emphasis added): 'While many such municipal prohibitions on sexual orientation discrimination expressly exempt religious organizations from their coverage, the new amendment to Illinois Human Rights Act does not. '"

Without such an exception, it appears that any organization which employs fifteen or more people would be subject to anti-discrimination penalties if that organization refused to hire openly gay individuals.

The Chicago Tribune predictably trumpeted the bill as a good thing and ignored the implications for any who might find homosexual behavior morally problematic.

The WorldNetDaily article continues by quoting Blagojevich as saying, "What we're doing today is older than scripture: Love thy neighbor. It's what Jesus said when he gave his Sermon on the Mount: 'Do unto others what you would have others do unto you."'

It was my brother in law who years ago pointed out the deceptive hypocrisy of the left leaning agenda which applies equally to both the abortion rights and the gay rights agenda. In essence the view that says "you have your truth, I have mine" is exceedingly unfair when one considers what it costs each side. The liberal view means, essentially, "we will allow you to do that which we believe to be morally neutral, if you will allow us to do that which you believe to be morally reprehensible." More bluntly, "We will let you carry live babies to term if you will allow us to kill ours." Not exactly equality. What it apparently means in this case is, "you are not allowed to say or enforce any of your views of sexuality, even in private organizations, but you must comply with ours, by the force of law."

"Tolerance" means compliance with a liberal moral agenda, once again.

Right to Life Week Winds Down.

WorldNetDaily, as usual, maintains a focus on life issues that other sources do not. Two stories today are of interest as Right to Life Week winds down.

A canon lawyer filed a case against John Kerry with the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston last June, alleging that Kerry's stance on abortion was not only inconsistent with his claims of being a practicing Catholic, but amounted to heresy. Apparently, similar charges are being considered for others including Ted Kennedy and Mario Cuomo. While heresy charges are usually reserved for major doctrinal deviations, particularly related to the nature of God, I applaud the attempt to at least apply some standards. It seems every mainline Protestant denomination has struggled or failed to beat back moral cloudiness on this issue. Some have held firm, others have not. Would that all Christian groups would speak with clarity on the most basic human right. Church leaders who can't find clarity on this issue simply should not be in leadership.

Jeb Bush's appeal to the Supreme Court court to stop the starvation of Terry Schiavo will get a thumbs up or down decision as to whether the court will even consider the case. Kudos to Jeb for taking a stand.

It should be no surprise that we learn from the American Spectator that Arlen Spector has appointed an obstructionist, Hannibal Kemerer, to deal with the vetting of judicial nominees. Two quotes from the article are alarming.

"Kemerer was a protégé of Elaine Jones, who three years ago, as head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, lobbied Sen. Ted Kennedy to delay confirmation of many of President Bush's judicial nominees to a federal circuit court where her group had pending litigation. When Jones and Kennedy's deal was revealed, she was forced to resign."

That raises a basic question of integrity. Why hire someone to work in this very sensitive and explosive arena when he has ties to a conflict of interest situation? While it appears that "officially" Kemerer will be working on issues related to tort reform and civil litigation, according to the article, a move made after word of his hiring leaked, there remains cause for alarm. His position apparently gives him access to all files and briefings of the judiciary committee. Quite a strategic post for an obstructionist. The article adds,

"Specter has further inflamed both the White House and Republican leadership in the Senate by his request that all judicial nominees -- even those who previously were cleared by the Judiciary Committee -- go through committee hearings. This would mean that someone like filibustered Texas supreme court justice Priscilla Owen would have to face full committee once again."

The only reason I can see for bringing nominees to the committee again, is hope that those previously cleared might stumble or that "new information" might mysteriously become available.

I vividly recall Spector's grilling of Robert Bork years ago. I was working a highway construction job away from home and had a lot of time in the hotel at night to watch the hearings and the news reports. While not as infuriating as Ted Kennedy's tactics of reading a long list of accusations and then giving Bork a brief moment to try to respond to a few of them, Specter just seemed out of his league. He asked essentially the same question over and over and Bork, clearly becoming exasperated, kept explaining his position. I thought at the time that Specter must be rather dense, but I am relatively sure he simply wasn't getting the answer he wanted. His vote against Bork did not surprise after watching the hearings. I have not liked or trusted Spector since, and I suspect he is up to no good here as well. He appears to be setting up a structure to continue to obstruct the confirmation process.

Marketing Abortion, and a dodo Byrd

David Kupelian, managing editor at WorldNetDaily.com, has a lengthy and masterful article on the marketing of abortion. I have posted much on this topic, as the 32nd anniversary of Roe v Wade is two days from today. If this seems like a major topic for me, I recall Francis Schaeffer's statement, "if we will not stand for life, for what will we stand?" Charles Colson in BreakPoint has an article about British Parliament considering a mental capacity bill that would allow third parties to make medical decisions on behalf of someone else. On the heels of the Groningen Protocol, this is troubling, to say the least. There are those who will protest that the intent of such initiatives is misrepresented. I don't think they get it. The point is that abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are all active killing of patients who have committed no crime and are a threat to no one. It makes no difference how advocates of such thinking may appeal to the intensity of the suffering of the patient or the dim prospects for a "future". There is a difference between prolonging death and prolonging life, and there is a difference between accepting death and causing it.

NARAL Using Misleading Polls - Again

NARAL is once again using misleading poll statistics to shore up support for its pro-abortion agenda. WorldNetDaily again deserves credit for scooping this one, as their headline and story indicate that the Associated Press and the pollsters involved have been stonewalling on fessing up to some bogus numbers. What makes the poll bogus is the way the questions are worded. According to the story "the poll, which was conducted Nov. 19-21, featured this statement: "The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe v. Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal." This statement, after 32 years of debate on this subject, has to have been known by the pollsters to be an outright lie. Reproduced here is actual text from Roe V Wade itself:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

In short, as has been pointed out countless times, in the first trimester all abortions are legal. In the second, restrictions can be imposed for the sake of the mother, not the child. In the third, restrictions have a limitless exception for "health", as defined in Doe v Bolton:

"medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."

In essence, abortion has, since 1973, been permissible for nine months. Recent years have shown how potent this decision has been as even partial birth abortion has become commonplace. For a poll to suggest that abortion is legal only in the first trimester and then ask respondents to agree with keeping such a law legal is pure deception.

Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL and long a convert to the pro-life view, writes in Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist how NARAL has from the beginning used deception to advance its agenda. In the early days, in attempts to legalize abortion, NARAL fabricated statistics:

"Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000."

Nathanson outlines three main tactics used by the organization he helped found. 1) Capture the media. 2)Play the Catholic card. 3) Suppress all evidence that life begins at conception. This remains the mode of operation of the pro-abortion view. Media attention is heavily slanted in a way that favors Roe. Catholics in particular and Christians in general are marginalized as being opposed to abortion for purely "religious" reasons, as if evidence of life in the womb were non-existent. Finally, that very evidence never sees the light of day. One can go to any public library and learn that the heart of an unborn child begins beating just 18 days after conception and that brain function can be measured by the 49th day. Has this information ever been presented in any national news outlet when this topic is reported on?

A few brave souls have carried on the lonely fight. Most Americans, if the facts are understood, are very much opposed to the vast majority of abortions in this country, but only a few are fighting this battle on the front lines. Nathanson is one, as is the "Jane Roe" of Roe v Wade.

Norma McCorvey spoke outside the Supreme Court building about her pending challenge to Roe v Wade. The inside cover of her book reads, "Poor, pregnant and desperate, Norma McCorvey fell into the hands of two young and ambitious lawyers. They were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion, and Norma signed on." Canada's prolife newspaper The Interim has a good brief summary of her story.

Because McCorvey is the original "Roe" in the case, she has a unique standing with the court to challenge its finding. It is my hope that the tide is turning and that this 32 year long history of sacrifice of infants is nearing an end.

Proverbs Daily has a good series on Sanctitiy of Life Week, 2005.

Trials and tribulations

In spite of having two firewalls, anti-virus software and adware protection, I still got hit with a computer virus last week and had to reformat my computer to get back to normal. This is a frustration. While computers have enabled us to do many amazing things, the problems associated with the internet make us all wonder from time to time if it is worth it. Have our lives become simpler? More productive? Or are we just overloaded with information? I guess we take the good with the bad and adjust. Needless to say, regular posting has been delayed.

Powerline has a post on the killing of a killing of a Coptic Christian family in Jersey City . It had been reported in previous days that the father was involved in writing internet posts critical of Islam. Michelle Malkin also posted on this topic. Both referred to an ABC News news report that presents more information about potential motives. The key quote, which appears on both blogs this morning is this...

"ABC News has learned that a cousin of the slain family has been a translator working for the prosecution in the trial of Lynne Stewart. She is the radical lawyer accused of smuggling messages from imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, to terrorist cell members and associates. "

Anglican theologian Endorses Euthanasia

WorldnetDaily reports today that an aid to the archbishop of Canterbury now makes a theological case for euthanasia. The article reads in part:

"Canon Professor Robin Gill, a leading Church of England theologian, speaking to London's Sunday Telegraph, said, "There is a very strong compassionate case for voluntary euthanasia. In certain cases ... there is an overwhelming case for it."

Officially, the church is not in alignment with this view, according to the article

"Archbishop Williams, however, has been a longtime member and supporter of the pro-life group, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, that campaigns against legalizing euthanasia. And the Church of England recently joined the Roman Catholic Church in a joint statement in opposition to the Assisted Dying Bill which legalized euthanasia.

That this should be a news story on the Sunday dedicated in this country to the sanctity of life is probably no accident. Pro-life people have made the connection between abortion, infanticide and euthanasia for thirty years, and predictions of the erosion of the value of life have been fulfilled. What is probably most shocking to early defenders of life is how mainline churches continually waffle on this issue or even endorse the ending of life by supposed caregivers.

There can be no stronger condemnation of any such view than that in Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." Oddly, the religious left keep turning this on its head, agitating for the "right" to end the lives of the innocent while calling the second half of the verse, capital punishment of the guilty, inhumane.

When such views come from the leadership of entire church communions, one can only shake his head in disbelief. Those who have the sense to see through this inversion of common sense and morality need to hold such leaders accountable. It has been thirty years since abortion was legalized in the United States and there is a very good possibility that the supreme court in this country will, as a result of the last election, be populated by a majority that will not read radical social policy into the constitution, but will instead actually read the words of the constitution and hold themselves bound by it. It may take a similar amount of time to root false teachers out of the leadership of mainline denominations, but I suspect diligence can accomplish even this, if ordinary folks can be faithful...and patient.

Consumer Reports - Tacit Approval of Abortion

Worldnetdaily is a news service with a definite conservative evangelical slant. I don't agree with everything that has appeared there, but they seem to cover stories that get missed in a lot of other places. Today, a leading story is that Consumer Reports has tacitly approved abortion, referring to two articles in Consumer Reports on the Web. One is related to the testing of condoms , which is not in itself approving abortion, but the other referring to birth control in a broader sense, gives a wink of approval to Planned Parenthood.

Our society is so numb to moral issues that sex has become just another recreational sport. Testing of condoms and testing of coffee makers can fit very nicely into the same publication without a hint of a blush. And abortion is easily passed off as just another method of birth control, accepted as being as much a part of the fabric of life as washing the car or doing the laundry. One would expect this sort of lazy moral drift from some of the agenda driven media outlets on the libertine side, but not from a publication that has a primary purpose of objectively testing products and informing consumers of the factual results. The fact that this sort of thing so easily slips into the content of such a publication, so easily is accepted by those who provide a mere public information service, is evidence that decay is just an inevitable part of living in a fallen world, whether that decay is physical, moral or spiritual.

CBS Memogate

The CBS Memogate controversy, which focused like a laser beam on a central question of whether a memo which called into question President Bush's National Guard service record was a forgery, continues today with the posting of the report of the Thornburgh and Boccardi investigation.

Many in the Blogoshphere seem happy that the report is done and that it does present a lot of evidence that CBS messed up. Others are calling the report a whitewash. There is a good summary in the Weekly Standard, referred to by Powerline. Hugh Hewitt observes that now that the spotlight is on the blogosphere, bloggers are being a good bit more cautious in criticizing the report.

But the main point many who are critical raise is that the report did not come to any conclusion about the central question of whether the document was forged. This is made clear by the statement of Mary Mapes, perhaps the chief figure in the whole controversy, who after her firing stated "It is noteworthy the panel did not conclude that these documents are false"

This does seem rather incredible. From what I could see, the report does present a lot of evidence that the documents could not be authentic, yet it fails to draw any conclusion.

Michelle Malkin has a lot of information and analysis and ratherbiased.com has, as one would expect, a good summary. Advocacy journalism got off easy, in my opinion.

Vivid Example of Excellence

Brett Favre may retire after a long disappointing season. Having lost his father, his brother in law, discovering his wife has cancer and finally enduring the sudden death of Reggie White, it would be easy to understand Favre not thinking football is the most important thing in life. Other tragedies have hit the Packers organization, the death of Ray Sherman's young son, and the death of team VP Mark Hatley. Add to it all that the Packers defense has been struggling all year, forcing Favre and the offense to win games playing from behind. Pressure, stress, emotional drain.

If Favre retires, we will all understand. We hope not, not yet. But if he does, we will have had the privelege of watching an all time great, a guy who has been an example of toughness, perseverance in the face of adversity, humility, class and a guy who just has a lot of fun. George Will once said something to the effect of "professional sports serve society by providing vivid examples of excellence". Few have been as vivid as Brett Favre.

Rewarding the Obnixious

Michael Moore has apparently won the "favorite movie" at the People's Choice awards. Sure it is a popularity contest, but one would think that a modicum of accuracy and truthfulness in a documentary would be a standard of some sort for these things. Christopher Hitchens' review from last June ought to be assigned reading to anyone who voted for this film.

Disgusting Example of Cluelessness

Randy Moss should be suspended. On Sunday, on national TV, after scoring a touchdown that effectively ended the Packers' season, Moss ran under the goalpost, pretended to pull down his pants and
moon the crowd, then rubbed his backside against the goal post. Granted, I am a Packer fan, so I may take it more seriously than others, but I think he should get a one-game suspension.

For one, he has never exactly been a model citizen. His entire career has been defined by selfishness and stupid attitudes, none that match this latest incident. Just a week earlier, he walked off the field and into the locker room with two seconds left in a game, showing immense disrespect for his teammates who still had a shot at a last gasp miracle onside kick. When repeatedly asked by Fox analyst Jimmy Johnson if what he did was wrong, he finally said it was but that he might do it again.

But the larger picture is that this was not just a stupid display of selfishness, he provoked the crowd. Just a few weeks ago a melee occurred in a game between the Detroit Pistons and Indiana Pacers which involved fans and players. Punches were thrown, chairs and drinks were thrown, arrests were made, suspensions were issued, fans were banned from the arena.

A disgusting act is one thing, but Moss' act was also an act that could have easily brought fans out of the stands or incited them to begin throwing items onto the field. 70,000 people were in the bleachers in a foul mood. I daresay in a few other NFL stadiums, Moss' actions would have resulted in a riot.

It is time for pro sports, entertainment and other high publicity segments of society to stop coddling these creeps. It is said that no publicity is bad publicity. Bad for who? Maybe Moss, Madonna, Janet Jackson, Jerry Springer and others get their faces in the public eye and become more "marketable" to a certain segment of society, but everybody else is demeaned in the process. Randy Moss may never learn decency or class, but if he learns, it will only happen if his actions are punished and if it is clear that his selfish stupidity affects others and not just himself. Let the Vikings play their next playoff game without Randy Moss. See if he likes the publicity then. Better for one team to suffer one game than for a full scale riot to break out in a 70,000 seat stadium.

By the way, Coach Mice Tice looks like about a six foot seven individual and talks tough in press conferences. Why isn't he willing to get in the face of Randy Moss and give him an ultimatum - shape up or sit out?

Inauguration, faith and art

Michael Newdow has added a new trick to his show, attempting a lawsuit to prevent the President elect from placing his hand on the Bible during the inauguration as a violation of church/state separation. I find this totally unsurprising these days. Average citizens generally know in an intuitive way that "me-ism" is the prevailing moral law of the land, even if they can't explain why. Many conservatives have attempted to prove that the United States was founded on broadly Christian principles, though not sectarian ones. The best source I know on this topic is that of David Barton.

The recognition that a national church can lead to oppressive coercion did not prevent the founding fathers from allowing and promoting the existence of state churches in individual states of the union and insisting on Christianity as the basis of law. But as with many other issues, history and facts don't really matter to those with an agenda. All that matters is the here and the now, and all the wisdom of ages past is assumed archaic and out of date. It is probably futile to try to prove to Newdow what the founders intended, he probably doesn't care. Many judges don't care either and are intent on pressing a social agenda.

What strikes me, though, is the sheer audacity of having the guts to singlehandedly try to overturn a tradition that is so old and established. If anything hurts the reputation of America in the rest of the world, it is this individualism that comes off as arrogance, that the few feel no qualms about dictating radical change to the many. And rightly or wrongly, this arrogance is attributed to all Americans, regardless of religious or political views.

Speaking of the inauguration, Michelle Malkin has entered the debate about the now in question concert by Kid Rock at the inauguration. She has posted actual lyrics from some of his "art". Be warned, it is every bit as bad as what one might imagine. Yes, Kid did apparently support Bush, but I'm afraid his presence at this official presidential event is ridiculous. This is a troubled individual whose moral compass is not functioning well at all.

Which brings one other issue to mind, that is the controversy over Christian rock bands playing in public schools. Hugh Hewitt has posted on this and given some space to the web sites of a couple of such bands. I could write pages on this subject, being something of a musician myself. On the base question, I did, long ago, play Christian music in a High School. I now have mixed feelings about this whole issue. On the one hand, there should be no issue with free expression of religion in any public sphere. But I do understand the tension many feel about actual proselytizing in a public school sanctioned event. If a Christian rock band can play at a school concert, even if it is optional, shall we also allow a Satanist band to play as well? (Maybe schools already do.) Or what about a band promoting radical Islam? (Or is this limited to actual class assignments?)

It is one thing to pass out tracts on the sidewalk, to allow groups to meet on the premises after hours, to have open debate and discussion. But a concert during school hours somehow seems a bit different, knowing that most Christian rock bands have a singular purpose - evangelism. The standard that the government "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" has a different meaning today that it did 200 years ago, simply because there are so many religions represented in this country. Schools will have trouble drawing a line between allowing free exercise and avoiding "establishment".

But my perspective may be skewed. I am a committed Christian, but I really don't like a lot of what is put out by the Christian music industry. Mainly, most of it just strikes me a contrived and shallow. Evangelicals in the arts have typically, in years past, been prone to making propaganda as opposed to art. That is, art is nothing more than a "tool" to advance a message. It then ceases to be art. As propaganda, it becomes subtly insulting and offensive. In recent years, the "worship" phenomena has changed the emphasis, but the lyrical content is often merely a collection of feelings about God very much akin to teenage feelings about a boyfriend or girlfriend. It redefines both "worship" and "art" and diminishes both, in my opinion.

Great Christian art of the past was different. Some have said the reason is that modern evangelicals have gnostic tendencies, that is, they see the material world as evil and the "spiritual" world as pure, so the artistic efforts are totally absorbed in "spiritual" feelings and sentiments that are not connected to physical realities. I think it is a matter of fact that an evangelical could not have made a movie like "The Passion of the Christ", because it would have been difficult for many to think of or support a movie so frankly realistic about the connection between the physical and spiritual suffering of Christ. The good news is that once "The Passion" was made, evangelicals in the arts will intuitively learn from such a film and will be less squeamish about making those connections. As Francis Schaeffer once put it, if we were to put everything that is expressly sinful into a box and lock that box, everything else is spiritual.

If Christians want to be influential in the arts, it is my belief that they must spend more time creating art about ordinary things like love, politics, food, nature, family, life. They should spend less time creating art about exclusively "religious" topics. Then the question would not be about letting a "Christian" band play in a high school and more about letting a good band play, and those who listen can evaluate how Christian values connect to daily life. In the end such an approach would be, in my opinion, much more effective.

Random notes from the realms of faith and culture.

Oliver Stone blames Christians for the flop of his latest movie. Considering that Stone pioneered the art of making "historical" films that play fast and loose with history, a technique that serves Michael Moore well, no one should be too surprised.

Michael Newdow is still trying to change the pledge of allegiance. This time, he is representing other parents who claim their kids are somehow harmed by the words "under God", since his daughter and her mother decided not to go along.

Kid Rock will perform at the inauguration. Many religious conservatives find this puzzling, considering his lyrics are laced with obscenities and graphic sex. And at the inauguration, crosses will be banned from the parade route. This may have been poor wording of a guideline that was intended to keep pointed objects from being brought to the event, but it is a curious controversy.

There may be no more gut wrenching story than that of the exploitation of child victims of the tsunami, a topic which The Evangelical Outpost covers this morning.

And Breakpoint has a good essay on the importance of a biblical worldview.

Tsunami and God's goodness

I have not posted on the devastation of the tsunamis. It is simply so hard to even comprehend, it fails to completely register. But after reading some posts that question God's existence as a result, I feel a need to ramble a bit. I can only say that I personally have never really questioned God's existence based on the reality of evil. There may be a question as to whether God is good or whether God is loving that is implicit in dealing with such massive suffering. But God's existence is a separate question.

Suffering, tragedy, particularly when those realities seem to make no sense and seem to have no link to fairness or justice, are huge challenges to belief. Human beings tend to pray in such situations, not always to a particular god, but to simply utter prayers to whatever larger force or personality in the universe might be listening. We look for help, answers, some explanation of events that defy explanation. And often the heavens are silent. No explanation is given and we are left with our grief.

I think the logical progression of our desperate thoughts is that we first hope there is a God who can make sense of it all or right all the wrongs. When the wrongs are not righted, we then question what kind of a god might by callous enough to allow this. And in the end, many choose that if God could allow such evil, he is not worth believing in.

I have personally been quite satisfied intellectually with the explanation of evil Scripture offers. That is, that "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). This is a world of cause and effect. Christianity teaches we are all infected with a moral disease and the entire created order has been affected, corrupted, and "the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." Not all suffering can be traced to an immediate cause, but all suffering can be traced to some choice, somewhere, sometime.

The tsunami actually provides a vivid illustration, though a harsh one, of a Christian view of evil. Evil has a point of origin, but the ripples expand in every direction, leaving destruction in its wake. And often times when evil is committed, those affected have no notion of what the cause was, they only get swept away by the waves.

It may intellectually satisfying to believe that evil has a cause, but such answers are hardly comfort to those in the midst of personal suffering. At such times, we don't ask "why", we ask "Why me? Why now?" Still, I cannot help but think that when we ask those questions, we are asking the right questions. Pain forces us to ask the hard questions. Pain strips away the pettiness of living. Pain alerts us to the reality that all is not right with the world. It forces us to seek answers. And for some at least, there is comfort in knowing that the God of Christian faith did not exempt himself from suffering.

I have certainly questioned God in times of grief and pain. But whether God is being fair to me at the moment or whether God is unjust in allowing massive disasters, these are separate questions from the question of whether he exists. It is much harder for me to disbelieve in God than to believe in him. But it is never easy to understand why, if he exists, he allows the ripples of bad choices to wash over innocent bystanders. I am thankful for the faith to believe that all such suffering is temporary and that there will come a day when every tear will be wiped away and all wrongs will be made right.

In the meantime, good choices leave ripples as well. And many, many people are busy at work trying to ease the suffering, to rebuild and restore what was devastated. Evil exists in the world and lashes out from time to time, but good keeps picking up the pieces and presses on. For that reason, despair is not to be trusted. And many choose to continue in faith in spite of great tragedy.

PBS and Intelligent Design

Interesting article in WorldNetDaily about a PBS station in Albuquerque cancelling a program on intelligent design. The documentary, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," is described as "a 58-minute program exploring what DNA reveals about the origin of life and documents how some scientists are skeptical about naturalistic explanations for the origin of genetic information and are looking to theories of design instead."

The story quotes Joan Rebecchi, the marketing manager for KNME, as saying "Our underwriting guidelines don't allow us to air programs that have a specific religious point of view." But this statement is curious because the program has aired, according to the article, in almost every top 2o market on other PBS stations.

It does point out a double standard. PBS would hardly be seen cancelling a documentary on evolution and justifying it by saying "Our underwriting guidelines don't allow us to air programs that have a specifically atheist point of view."

The notion remains intact in the acedemic and media elite communities that science and rationality cannot be in any way tied to theism, as if belief in God is a complete and total suspension of reason. Philip Johnson in "Darwin on Trial" pointed this tendency to put all theism in the prison of anti-rational superstition in discussing the 1981 Arkansas statute intended to allow creation-science in school classrooms overturned by Judge William Overton. Overton is saying that creation, or by inference design, is not science because it is not "explanatory by reference to natural law".

This is the central problem Intelligent design faces in attempting to gain a fair hearing. If science is defined as dealing only with that which is explainable by natural law, then by definition anything that suggests there is something beyond nature is not science. Evolution wins, not on the basis of evidence or logic, but by definition. This is the assumption many in society have, usually an unexamined assumption. Rationality is bound up with nature, anything beyond nature is therefore not rational. All matters of belief in anything beyond nature are thus shunted away to fields of inquiry that are outside the realm of "real" knowledge.

Moving beyond mere Intelligent Design to more specific theological matters, Christianity is absolutely dependent on some level of reason and rationality. Yes it is assumed in Christianity that a supernatural being from time to time invades the natural world. But these invasions are not beyond the realm of testing and verification. If water was turned to wine, rational human beings could have tasted the wine. If a man born blind was healed, rational people who knew him before and after could attest to the change. Most entries into the natural realm by the Christian deity in the Old and New Testaments leave behind a trail of evidence. And that evidence can be examined.

Moving back to ID, here is where the ID debate needs clarification. What intelligent design purports to show is not that there is a specific God of a specific religion, necessarily. It simply claims that the evidence, the trail of clues, leads to a conclusion that what exists was designed and could not have come into existence without intelligence. Who that intelligence is and what that intelligence might be like are left open to other debates. Those debates are appropriately held in the realms of theology, philosophy and metaphysics. But the question of whether real data in the real world can show evidence of being specifically designed should not be sequestered away from the field of science, anymore than evidence which seems to indicate randomness or chance should be dismissed because it might support atheism.

No one who cares about rationality or academic freedom should allow ID theories to be cast aside based on a false notion that only theories that propose a naturalistic cause can even be considered by definition - thus not even allowing massive amounts of evidence to be considered.