THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS BLOG DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF ALL CONTRIBUTORS AND EACH TEAM MEMBER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FACTS AND OPINIONS CONTAINED IN HIS POST.


CLICK FLAGS FOR PAGE TRANSLATION OPTIONS

  Google  
           Search ESPRESSO ROAST Search WWW

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

living out the God-complex

My Way News

in this real, live horror story, doctors in the netherlands have begun the process of euthenizing babies. if you get the mental images of a veterinarian putting dogs to sleep and tossing out the carcasses, you're not the only one.

down that slippery slope we slide. i suppose abortion rights activists should have no problem with this one, either.

Labels:

Monday, November 29, 2004

High court won't review Mass. gay marriage law

MSNBC - High court won't review Mass. gay marriage law: "BREAKING NEWS"

seems like a strange development...you would think there would at least be an explanation. too controversial for the court to tackle?

Labels:

a moral dichotomy

yesterday I watched part of a debate on "this week," hosted by george stephanopolous in which a panel including gary bauer, tony campolo and others were discussing issues related to politics and religion. unfortunately, i was channel surfing and did not get to see the beginning of the debate, but soon after i turned on, tony campolo made a statement i found very troubling.

to give a little background, the discussion was centered around issues of morality that came into play in this last election cycle. one issue specifically was that of homosexuality and the ban on same sex marriages adopted in eleven states. in a rebuttle to gary bauer's contention that homosexuality is an important issue to be addressed, campolo's comment was (and i paraphrase) that never in the Bible does Jesus ever speak on the issue of homosexuality...paul does...but not Jesus. however, Jesus (specifically in matthew 25 ) and Scripture, generally, mentions care for the poor repeatedly, thereby framing it as the major issue that christians must address in the world rather than homosexuality. now, i don't want to be too quick about speaking any kind of judgment on campolo based on his statement, though clearly his views have been questioned by many within the evangelical community, but what campolo seems to be promoting in this statement is either a ranking of biblical teaching based on the speaker's level of authority (i.e. Jesus over paul), or a ranking based on the number of times an issue is raised within Scripture.

are evangelicals and christians at large wrong to bring up the issue of practicing homosexuality as sinful since Jesus never mentioned it? is it therefore not an issue that is worthy of address because Christ did not specifically mention it in His discourse regarding the sheep and the goats? on the other hand, is campolo right that too much is being made of the homosexual agenda as opposed to the issue of taking care of the poor and the homeless?

in my view, trying to force such a dichotomy is the real issue. on the one hand, i think campolo is dead wrong in elevating one issue above the other based on biblical reference, thus implying that parts of Scripture are either less inspired, passé, or unauthoritative. evangelicals believe that the entire Word of God is inspired from beginning to end written, as it were, by the Holy Spirit (God) with no one part carrying any more weight than another. so for people like campolo to dismiss this issue as he seems to do is a mistake in his handling the authority of Scripture. like it or not, romans chapter 1 clearly speaks against the practice of homosexuality when in verses 18-32 he states:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

as we see from the list of sins at the end of the passage, homosexuality is not exclusively written in reference to the sin of the people addressed, but homosexuality is certainly highlighted. so those who attempt to marry godliness to the homosexual agenda (not saying campolo himself has done that in this case but many clearly have including most recently the episcopal church, presbyterian usa, et al) are either ignorant of biblical teaching or, more likely, are simply disingenuous in their claim of being concerned with biblical doctrine. having said that, i am not implying that this is a sin greater than another. i believe sin is sin and all of it places a barrier between man and God. i am only addressing the context within which this debate has been framed. homosexuality, by its very nature, is a lifestyle sin (as opposed to a single act committed unintentionally) thereby making it more difficult to address and overcome. in this sense only, homosexuality is worse than some others. i could talk about other instances within Scripture such as the case related to the men of sodom desiring to have sex with the male visitors of lot as recorded in genesis 19 , but the point is simply that Scripture directly addresses the issue of homosexuality and distinctly places it within the context of sin.

this being the case, does this give anyone a license to mistreat or in any way degrade anyone within the homosexual community? absolutely not. we are to respect all people as having been made in the image of God. this image, however, does not include the characteristics of our fallen humanity, making it essential we not equate our sinful qualities with his perfect and holy nature. nor does this mean that we must be accepting of homosexuality as a valid "lifestyle alternative" any more than we accept incest, polygamy, or bestiality as valid lifestyle alternatives. as far as abusing someone, physically or verbally, we are to be tolerant, but that is not equal to acceptance of the lifestyle. this word "tolerant" implies the idea of putting up/co-existing with the thoughts, beliefs, practices, etc held by another person with whom we disagree. since one does not simply tolerate a view one agrees with, this word does not imply something that is embraced as right or true or even acceptable.

this is only one side of the coin, though. in one respect, campolo's argument is absolutely correct, in my opinion: the poor must not be neglected. it is a requirement of Christ for His people, and the Church, in general, does a terrible job of addressing it. though i believe that the provisions being made through charitable choice signed into law under the clinton administration and the department of faith-based initiatives under the bush administration are huge steps in the right direction of allowing churches and other faith-based groups greater opportunity to help meet these needs, it is imperative that the Church step up to the plate and begin taking seriously the responsibility it has to remember the poor and actually do the work of providing the help needed. all of the government provisions for people of faith to become more involved in providing social services means nothing unless action is actually taken.

certainly, how the needs of the poor should be met is a debatable point with perhaps many options that would be considered good possibilities. the fact is, however, many within our country are content to let the government take care of those needs. this view is terribly flawed as there is nothing within Scripture to either mandate or justify that stance. it is the responsibility of the Church from a biblical perspective, but it is also the responsibility of every citizen within this country, whether through giving financially to a local, reputable service provider or by personally getting involved, giving of our time to help take care of the needs of the poor around us. most evangelical christians would agree that there is a limited role for government to play in meeting the needs of its citizens, but christians in particular have a God-commanded responsibility to take this issue just as seriously as it takes the stand against practicing homosexuality and make a positive impact on the lives of those within our communities. it really is not an either/or issue, but rather a both/and problem.

Labels:

Sunday, November 28, 2004

Paralyzed woman walks again after stem cell therapy

Paralyzed woman walks again after stem cell therapy: "Sunday November 28, 1:21 PM"

a major development in stem cell research came last week as a south korean woman took her first steps 20 years after damaging her back in an accident. the great news is the treatment was developed using the stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood. this is a promising and exciting development as many, like me, who desire to see the results that can come from stem cell research believe the methods used in harvesting stem cells from human embryos is unethical due to the destruction of the embryo in the process. hopefully, more research and developments from this wonderful success story will lead to the end of the fight for embryonic stem cells.

Labels:

a moment in time

the tree went up yesterday. as i normally do each year after everything is decorated, i turned out all of the lights in the house except for the tree and sat to watch the silent flicker of those little white lights, enjoying the memories encased in each of the many decorations suspended from the limbs. it seemed like a just a moment ago that i had done the exact same thing last year. almost as if no time had passed, again i was watching those same lights that have gone on the same tree for the past eleven years. how fast time moves by. cliche, i know, but as i look at my little boy and think back to christmas a year ago and remember sitting with him on the floor in our living room, house lights down as we watched the lights flicker on the tree, i realize these moments are escaping and there is absolutely nothing i can do to stop it; to even slow it down.

the day after my son was born, i walked by the gift shop of the hospital with my dad. as we passed the children's clothing in the window, he pointed some childrens clothes that look very much like the clothes my son wears today and said, "you know, it won't be long before jacob is wearing those clothes." though perhaps it may have seemed rather odd to speak that way in reference to a one day old baby, i knew what he was saying and my mind instantly raced back to my earliest memories as a child and realized that it had taken only a moment for me to be standing with my 70 year old father as he stood beside his 32 year old son. he knew all too well how quickly this life escapes us. in that one comment, he gave me a world of wisdom.

now, to even realize that i have a four year old little boy is sometimes too much for me to comprehend. what have i done with the last four years? what kind of impression have i made on his little, developing mind? oh, the fear in parenting. i am not worthy for this honor and i so often feel so ill-equipped. but i am thankful. i know it is only by the grace of God that i am here today, and i reflect on the opportunities--some taken and some missed--and i vow to miss no more...a vow i know i am incapable of keeping but one i feel compelled to make anyway.

i suppose most people get nostalgic around the new year as they reflect on what they have done in the previous year and look ahead with anticipation of what awaits in the new. for me, it's sitting on the floor, alone and quiet, knowing that in just a moment, Lord willing, i'll be here again with yet another year under my belt, thinking about my wonderful wife and my little boy who is growing up, oh so fast, wishing i could fully appreciate what i have...wishing i could push the pause button until i can get a grip on the now; until i can fully appreciate what i have before even this moment has passed. but time continues on at lightening speed and i'm left grasping these quiet moments, praying for strength and wisdom to make the most of what time i have here and now, and hoping that my little boy will be able to enjoy the journey as much as his daddy does.

Labels:

Saturday, November 27, 2004

do as i say (not as i do)

USATODAY.com - Father arrested after attempt to discipline daughter backfires

the guy in this usa today story is the poster child for the importance of practicing what you preach in regards to parenting. actually, he's the poster child for those who think a "parenting license" might be in order...i might be inclined to agree.

Labels:

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

happy thanksgiving

as we approach this thanksgiving day, i encourage you to read michelle malkin's thanksgiving article. a happy and blessed thanksgiving to all.

Labels:

a world of contradictions

although I know that it is a sign of our current times, i still never cease to be amazed at our culture's ability to embrace contradictions. we live in what many have labeled a "culture of death" because of our acceptance of abortion. this is an issue that divides our country at every election and practically every day in between. people vehemently defend the woman's right to choose while others defend the baby's right to live.

supposedly, the issue has been settled by the courts. the supreme court ruled that life begins at birth. well, then there comes the peterson case in which this guy is charged with murder...two counts. the fetus which isn't yet a person is now given rights. that's right, the right to live, and scott peterson is charged with fetal homicide.

the most recent
instance of this type of crime came out this morning in louisville, where i live. a man has been charged with killing his unborn child by beating his ex-wife. a 19 year old man was arrested tuesday afternoon for beating his 18-year-old ex-wife who is in stable condition at a local hospital. according to the report, "her 5-month-old unborn fetus died after what police said was the latest of beatings the young woman suffered."

first, it's hard not to feel absolutely enraged by the level of brutality and cold-hearted cruelty demonstrated by this man (and i use that term loosely). i suppose this, in part, speaks to one of the prevailing attitudes: either 1. this man truly didn't care that he could kill this child, 2. wanted to kill the child, or 3. didn't even view it as a child. either way, we see demonstrated a devaluation of human life.

then there is the whole idea of fetal homicide. exactly how can there co-exist two laws on the books, one that says doctors can kill unborn children but nobody else can? is that not completely irrational? help me here, because i don't see it. if i'm right here, i assume that it goes all the way back to the woman's body thing. i think what we have is that a woman who has become pregnant, for whatever reason, has been given the charge of declaring human value. it seems to me that if the woman wants the child, even unborn, the child is a person...a human being. if the woman doesn't want the child, the unborn child is not a human being. even on this level, there is a terrible contradiction. regardless of the judgment of the woman, the unborn is either a child or it isn't. there cannot be, in reality (though i often question whether many actually live in that realm), two women standing side-by-side, one carrying a non-human, potential child...a fetus, and the other carrying an unborn human being...a child, determined to be so simply because each of the women have judged them to be so. sounds crazy, but i think that's really what is going on within our legal system, and our culture at large. i suppose this is what we get when we have a legal system divorced from a transcendent, almighty God who alone is equipped to make those judgments. we have to make decisions like this that we have demonstrated our inability and incompetence to do so intelligently...in short, we were never designed for this.

so, i suppose we will continue to live in our duality, accepting, if not embracing, the contradictions we face in morality, ethics, religion, politics, and i suppose the list could go on and on. actually, i hope that is not the case. i hope those of us who believe in a transcendent, almighty and sovereign God will make our voices heard...not with a graceless condemnation on those caught up in the contradictions, but with compassion and love for a world caught up in the confusion and a message of hope that is found in the Author of life and order.

Labels:

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

time for recalibration

If there is one major problem with email and the blogosphere, it is how impersonal people become. when one feels attacked, how easy it is to depersonalize the other individual and unleash a torrent of attitude. to say things in a way that one would never do in person...face to face with someone who deserves dignity and grace regardless of how strongly you disagree with their views. but further reflection has led me to another conclusion that perhaps we all can learn: i've been guilty, like most blogs i've been reading lately on both sides of many issues, of depersonalizing people in the public as well. There are many people i disagree with on the left...yes, i am a conservative person, Scripturally and politically. for years, especially while a pastor in new england, i suppressed my political views in order to try and minister to all people who came through our doors...i tried to be apolitical. after leaving there, though, there was so much that i disagreed with among the liberals, especially after living amongst a large number of them for eight years, that i could no longer remain neutral. frankly, i don't think one needs to remain neutral in order to be gracious. there are certainly issues and principles that must be stood for with conviction and passion...not from a conservative or liberal perspective, but from a biblical one. i won't pretend that i am non-partisan, but that doesn't mean that i believe everything that any one political party stands for is absolutely right. i have selected a party that moves in the general direction i believe is the right one for our country and then individually will deal with my view of specific issues that may or may not be in line with that party. there is a place and time for politics, and there is a time to leave it aside...the trick is to be able to understand the difference.

as a teen-ager, there was a word that i always chose when asked to describe myself. it was the word, "becoming." i always chose that because i knew that i had not arrived, but i was on the journey...i was seeking to be better tomorrow than i was today, and i knew that Jesus was carrying out that process within me. well, i'm 36 now and the word still applies, though some days a lot less than others. the goal of this blog was never to let anybody have it, but to simply reflect on life and try and find the truth therein. i quickly got side-tracked at certain points along the way. time to go back to my original intention...to find TRUTH in life and try and reflect on it, understand it and speak to it honestly, perhaps firmly sometimes, but always seasoned with salt. i don't desire to get sucked into every news item or party agenda item that leads me to a tirade against politicians or any other individual i may read about. i just want to address views i disagree with, are concerned about, or that i would champion. does stating my view make me always right? of course not, but the purpose of this blog is not only to try and speak intelligently about an issue, but to discover for myself what is going on deep inside of me and hope perhaps someone else who may be wandering through can gleen something about themselves that can encourage them along the journey, too.

i have many liberal friends with whom i often enjoy spirited discussions because there is an element of respect. that is often lost when dealing with people we are not addressing face to face. we can't look at them in the eye and try to understand where they're coming from not only through their words, but perhaps even more importantly, through their expressions. there is something of humanness mysteriously lost sometimes. cyberspace is a wonderful thing as far as it goes, but how difficult it is not to de-humanize other people, especially people we don't even know or interact with like politicians, actors, people in the media, etc. as for me, i'm adopting a stricter policy that deals with issues and leaves the personal rhetoric outside...even for john kerry :-) Feel free to hold me to it.

Labels:

lunch special

update on that grill cheese sandwich: sold for $28k...sheesh.

Labels:

need a good laugh?

if you need a stress-reliever like I do (in the midst of the end-of-semester crunch), check out this great proline commercial. after the indy-detroit basket-brawl game, we probably need something to help us enjoy sports again.

Labels:

Monday, November 22, 2004

take your best shot

it's bad enough that today's video games give kids the opportunity to go on murderous rampages in the virtual world of popular game stations. now, it appears, developers are beginning to let people try their hand at real, historical assassination.

according to the boston herald, "A British firm seeking to capitalize on the anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's murder today is issuing 'JFK Reloaded,' a purportedly educational 'docu-game' that lets players fire the fatal shots from the Texas Book Depository over and over again." the paper goes on to explain the developers desire is to 'promote the title respectfully, given the sensitivity of the subject.'" how exactly, do you promote the subject respectfully when you are playing the role of lee harvey oswald with the goal of being the one to blow a hole in the back of the president of the united states' head? in my opinion, video games traveled far over the line long ago with games that allowed kids...kids...to play the role of killers, drug traffickers, guerilla warlords, and any other number of outlaws breaking every conceivable rule to attain a high score. this latest development only takes the insanity to the next level.

the company, traffic, is actually trying to convince the public that this is an educational video game. managing director kirk ewing claims that the game would 'stimulate a younger generation of players to take an interest in this fascinating episode of American history.'" isn't it great to hear how concerned people are for the educational development of young minds? i'm truly touched at his concern for education and the promotion of history among kids. sarcasm aside, my fear is that a game like this will indeed stimulate a younger generation, but i'm afraid mr. ewing and i have very different opinions as to the nature of the stimulation. it isn't difficult to see the fear that some unstable soul (already prone to enjoyment by violent games) playing a game like this may at some point decide to make history rather than study it. alarmist? some would lob that accusation. unfortunately, many deny the connection and then fail to see it even after something tragic does happen. it doesn't matter that most of the school shootings in our past are in some way connected either to violent video games or violent lyrics in music. how do they not see clear evidence before them? beats me.

according to vnunet, creators state their desire is to "promote the title 'respectfully whilst encouraging as many people to play the game as possible'." with that fact in mind they go on to report that "the game costs $9.99. traffic has offered a prize of up to $100,000 for the first person to most accurately recreate the three shots made by oswald." it seems the company has covered all of their marketing bases: the game isn't very expensive, making it accessible to hundreds of thousands of young hands with the curiosity to experience what they have heard about in history not to mention the added fuel of the hunger for $100k. clearly, this company is poised to make a killing.


Labels:

means and ends

i have been contemplating the need to address the issues related to the ethics of stem-cell research. since this topic has been and will continue to be a major part of our national conversation, it is worthy of our consideration. we may not be able to understand all of the details involving the procedures (though i will always advocate researching through an issue as thoroughly as possible), but we should be well-versed enough to understand the ethical concerns and underlying moral dilemmas embedded within the debate. we need to consider why this is such a hot-button issue. what's the big deal? is this something that a Christian should or should not support? are there larger issues at stake? can and will this affect the larger social structures? do the ends justify the means? all of these are important questions to consider. i encourage any readers to consider my friend alex forrest's treatment of the issue in a recent post on his blog from a couple of days ago. whether or not you agree with a particular political perspective or not, there are worldview perspectives that need to be examined that i think alex does a good job dealing with. i encourage you to carefully seek out the answers to these questions as sometimes the ends clearly do not justify the means.

Labels:

Saturday, November 20, 2004

he put the old in old-timer

you need to read this story. foxnews reports the death of the world's oldest man at age 113, fred hale, sr., who would have turned 114 in just 12 days. you may remember him as having been spotlighted after he watched the red sox win the world series this past october. if i'm not mistaken, he actually saw the red sox win back in 1918! he said he hoped he would live to see them do it again. well, mr. hale, you got your wish. this man genuinely lived an extraordinary life. after all, how many men do you know who try picking up boogie-boarding at age 95? of course, that was back in 1985. that was so long ago, he had probably gotten a little rusty since then.



Labels:

another door left wide open

yesterday, the united states lost in its attempt to pursuade the united nations to ban all human cloning regardless of its use. unfortunately, this is just one of a number of issues that results in a cultural shift when enough people make enough noise for a long enough time. in other words, the trend in our tolerant society (read, all is valid) has now become such that when a previously rejected issue...any issue...is raised, people are unwilling to say absolutely no to just about anything. therefore, once an issue that may have been considered taboo on moral or ethical grounds in the past first surfaces in public dialogue, you can mark it down right then that the cultural mood will shift. the game of softening up the public and making them desensitized is on, eventually giving the proponents the opportunity to claim victory sooner or later. we see this in the media regularly: new words that before were considered inappropriate for television are introduced to an initial outcry from certain corners of society, but within a short time are used so regularly (even used in situations where it is obvious a line in a story was written in for no other reason than for the opportunity to use that particular word), it is quickly absorbed into the list of acceptable terms. The same principle applies to any number of hot issues amassed within the so-called "culture wars."

when the idea of cloning first emerged there was a massive outcry; a collective gasp, if you will. like everything else, however, enough time passes as proponents (including the mass media) keep the information flowing into our ears and before long, we get used to the idea, become complacent, finally accepting the inevitable.


as for how this recent development occurred, the new york times reports that, "The United States backed a resolution proposed by Costa Rica to outlaw all forms of human cloning, while opponents of such an absolute prohibition supported a Belgian measure banning reproductive cloning outright and offering nations three options for therapeutic cloning: outlawing it, putting a moratorium on the practice, or regulating it through national legislation to prevent misuse." though this appeared a promising development under the circumstances, which would have at least put an outright ban on all forms of human cloning and had at least a thin chance of limiting other forms of cloning, the deliberations took a more typical and unfortunate turn: "Instead of proceeding to a showdown vote on Friday night, the committee agreed instead to take up a nonbinding declaration proposed by Italy with ambiguous language that avoided raising objections and to schedule meetings in February to shape the final wording. The Italians' proposal prohibits 'any attempts to create human life through cloning processes and any research intended to achieve that aim.'"

in case you think that sounds good (if you're against cloning), two key words need to be taken into consideration: the first is "declaration." this basically means a statement; an announcement of belief, if you will. the second is the word "non-binding." put the two terms together and you realize the united nations adopted...well, nothing. as usual, the united nations took the unfortunate position of doing nothing of real substance. no treaty or resolution; nothing that actually has any power to prevent this procedure from going forward. sure, some will say that it declared the process of human cloning "illegal," which is arguably not the case, but again, without a door being shut, i am afraid that time will demonstrate a continuing softening on the issue worldwide until it becomes the standard in therapeutic research and development. the times concludes the piece by explaining that "regardless of what language emerges, the result will be a declaration, not a treaty, which would have been the outcome had either the Costa Rican or Belgian versions been adopted. Because of that, nations will be under considerably less pressure to change their existing views on cloning.


"'A declaration is important for what it's not,' said Bernard Siegel, the executive director of the Genetics Policy Institute, who had lobbied against the American-led campaign. 'It is not a treaty, it is nonbinding, and it will have no chilling effect on therapeutic cloning, and stem cell research will advance. We consider this a triumph.'"

sadly, these types of triumphs are being declared on our society almost daily. whether or not those who hold to stronger ethical standards can overcome them remains to be seen. though history is not on our side, the recent overwhelming acceptance of a ban on gay marriage by all 11 states that voted on the recent measure demonstrates that these issues do not have to be surrendered, but that it takes the same level of determination as demonstrated by those who seek to reinterpret the meanings of right and wrong. i'm not really sure this is a war we can outright win, but i believe that if our society is to survive, it is a war that must be fought.



Labels:

Friday, November 19, 2004

honestly, lying is a good thing

while watching the news in the school cafe yesterday, i listened to an interview with julian keenan, director of cognitive neuroimaging at montclair state university, discussing the topic of lying. i found myself in agreement with a couple of points he made as he concluded that his studies revealed that lying was not a learned characteristic, but rather something that is innate in all humans; we are born pre-disposed to lie. as a Christian, this is nothing new as Scripture describes the fact that we were all born in sin, what theologians call "total depravity."

now, most people won't argue that lying is something that just comes naturally. after all, who has ever taught a child to lie? undoubtedly, no one because they are all born so darn good at it...i do have a four year old son. what came next is what blew me away: the question was asked of whether or not there were good lies and bad lies; was lying ever a good thing? according to dr. keenan, not only is lying sometimes good, "lying is a sign of high intelligence." dr. keenan's justification for this statement was that one must be able to analyze the other person, quickly determine what they want to hear and then have the ability to come up with a response that satisfies that other person's desire. therefore--and here's the kicker--"if parents could get over the morality and relax a bit, they could think differently when their child takes that cookie."

alright, it's one thing to acknowledge the fact that everyone is susceptible to lying once in a while, whether they like to admit it or not and regardless of how much they prefer not to. it wasn't long ago that people would admit to the occassional "white lie", but they knew that it was wrong...it was a bad thing. now there are people who simply redefine or re-categorize their lying, lessening the impact or importance (see my previous post), but what this man is proposing is a step beyond even that. he suggests that we actually embrace it. When our kids lie to us, we should be thankful because they are demonstrating signs of high cognitive development. how backwards has our society become that what has been considered a sign of deviance since the beginning of time has now become a virtue; a sign of high intelligence? is this really the kind of behavior we now want to actually encourage and instill in our children? this is what is going to make our society better? it seems to me the problems in society are largely because we have gotten over the morals, as if it's a bad case of the flu. therein, i think, lies the problem. postmodern culture has moved beyond the need for a God who has declared absolute truth and morality and, instead, traded in for self-determination and a "morality" defined as whatever works to get ahead. in this way of thinking, lying fits the bill. ask certain people about lying, cheating or stealing and they will usually reply that they wouldn't consider them wrong since there are times when these things are not only acceptable, but are sometimes, if not often, necessary. as c.s. lewis said, however, these same people who believe that these are relative issues rather than absolutes will claim to have been wronged every time they are lied to, cheated, or stolen from. we are being sold a bill of goods by an ideology that is self-defeating but pervasive.

the only thing that made me feel worse about the comments by dr. keenan was the reply from the interviewer: "thank you for joining us...interesting stuff." i suppose we've gotten to the point where we don't even question the absurdities anymore. we listen carefully and take it all in...hook, line and sinker.

Labels:

Thursday, November 18, 2004

postmodern politics

"[There's] not any example of where I ever disgraced this country publicly. I made a terrible public-personal mistake, but I paid for it, many times over. And in spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I ever let the American people down." --- Bill Clinton


ok. i'm just going to let that one speak for itself.

Labels:

gasp...we've been had!

hey, newsflash: according to professional skeptic joe nickell, the image of mary in the ten-year old grilled cheese sandwich that received bids on ebay for up to $22,0000, might not be authentic...



...go figure.

Labels:

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

eyes too blind to see

before this past presidential election, i was told that abortion should not be an issue since it is not a political issue. upon questioning that line of thinking further, i was able to gather that this particular individual felt that should be kept out of the election for two reasons: first, the issue had been settled long ago and it is the law of the land. second, that it is a spiritual, emotional issue...a matter of faith that had no place within the political framework. i'm sure you "got it" immediately, but, conceding that it is the law of the land, i asked my astute friend how exactly abortion became the law of the land. "the supreme court decided," came the reply. then i asked where those judges come from. my leftist friend correctly reported to me that they were appointed by the president and confirmed by the congress. "ah, we're getting somewhere now," i said. "and how do they get their job?" finally, my friend sheepishly admitted that they are elected. now, of course my friend knew the answers to all of those questions, but either he had not put it all together or hoped that i hadn't. to be honest, i really don't know which is the case.

we live in a time when attempts are made to marginalize key issues...issues that really deal with life and death...by a large portion of this country. no, the abortion issue is more than just an "emotional, faith issue," and most people know that whether they like it or not...whether they'll admit it or not. it is a matter of death. frankly, i don't care how you slice it, abortion means death...legalized infanticide. terms are used to try and make it sound more palatable but let's just call it what it is...if you're going to be for something like this, don't sugar coat it. in his blog for today,
dr. al mohler addresses the issue related to partial-birth abortion. he relates a testimony inside a san francisco courtroom given by maureen paul, lead author of an abortion textbook, testifying for a planned parenthood attorney:

"sometimes the fetus comes out in pieces, and I make instrument passes until the entire fetus is evacuated, and sometimes the whole fetus will come down into the [birth canal], at least as far as the head." In other cases, when the head is too large to pass through the canal, the doctor explained: "There are two things you can do. You can disarticulate at the neck . . . . Or what I prefer to do is to just reach in with my forceps, and collapse the skull, and bring the fetus out intact."
mohler points out the weak attempt to soften the edge of the procedure by the practitioner's use of such clinical terms like "disarticulate" by observing that "this word is nothing less than a sinister euphemism used to disguise the dismemberment of a human fetus."

the doctor's explanation sounds so clean and clinical, doesn't it? what does it really mean? come on, let's say it together: disarticulation...beheading. instrument passes...slices. descriptions of the murdering of human beings within the walls of the place that is supposed to preserve and save lives. what are we doing? what have we become...and what is next? we as a society have succeeded in legalizing the systematic elimination of an entire innocent, defenseless population: something that this country fought against in world war II when the nazis systematically killed innocent, defenseless jews, and something that our troops are fighting against now after a madman systematically eliminated thousands of innocent, defenseless iraqis. how do we fail to see the hypocrisy? we close our eyes to the facts convincing ourselves that since we refuse to see the similarities then there are none. we do not believe it because we simply do not want to. we simply do not care. God, help us.

Labels:

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

barney fife is on the job

according to the toronto star, president bush better watch out...he may end up in the big house under arrest for war crimes. what a power house of a country. doesn't say much for them that they are more concerned with seeing president bush behind bars than they were saddam hussein.

Labels:

Monday, November 15, 2004

custom kids

clearly, things are getting way out of hand. the british paper, times online, is reporting that the ability for prospective parents undergoing ivf (in vitro fertilization) to custom order their child is nearing reality. the article states, "couples will be able to choose donated sperm or eggs to create their designer child, under proposals published by the fertility watchdog. Characteristics such as height, eye colour and intelligence could be selected if women undergoing fertility treatment are given more freedom to pick the donated sperm, egg or embryo."

in many ways, this practice of selecting features for "special order" babies has been in practice for some time. as the paper reports, "The practice of screening donors for desirable characteristics is widespread in the US, where couples can pay up to $25,000 to secure the right type of donor. In America, donors are routinely screened according for high intelligence, family medical history and physical traits such as height, weight and eye, skin and hair colours." the concern for the parents, of course, is to make sure that the donated eggs "match" the characteristics of the family. according to specialists in the field, a child who looks drastically different than other family members may stand out and, therefore, have a difficult time fitting in as a regular family member. but many are opposed to the practice on moral and ethical grounds: "The controversial proposals are part of a public consultation launched yesterday by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). But critics are concerned that the proposal could lead to more couples demanding 'designer' babies and to parents having unrealistic expectations of the resulting children — a point accepted by the authority in its consultation document."

we don't have to go far to note the dangerous territory that is being tread upon with this kind of practice. many, myself included, have always been wary of the general acceptance of the practice of ivf to begin with. yes, there are millions of wonderful, loving and qualified parents who have undergone ivf, and many have successfully given birth to healthy children, but at what point do we stop? it is a tough and emotional question, but it is a question that every person who desires children must ask themselves. our answers could lead us down a path from which we cannot return and which we cannot alter.

the practice of "creating" designer children in which eye color, height, disposition or intelligence is a very natural next step. if, in this game some call "playing God" we can eliminate problems in children before they materialize, why shouldn't we? referring to the rationale of a similar practice dating back to the 19th century called eugenics, philip kennicott of the washington times wrote in an april, 2004 article, "Mankind, looked at objectively, could make itself healthier: by having healthier babies, tracing and eliminating genetic defects and preventing disease and 'deviancy'--alcoholism, prostitution and other 'urban' ills--from spreading throughout the society and from one generation to the next." these rationalities described by kennicott are not unfamiliar...we hear them all the time related to need for not only ivf selections but also genetic engineering. after all, we could end up with a world full of highly intelligent, superior members of the human race. sound familiar? it should. kennicott's article was referring to pre-world war II germany. what started out as a desire to end suffering through birth defects and genetically passed on deceases resulted in the quest for the perfect human...adolph hitler's aryan race.

kennicott goes on to explain that "the rise of eugenics, leads inexorably, methodically and incrementally to the Nazi era of forced sterilization, euthanasia and, finally, concentration camps, mass killings and the ovens of Auschwitz." further, he explains that "at every step in this tragic progress a moral threshold is crossed. Why it was crossed, then and there, in Hitler's Germany, is open to endless debate. But as the [holocaust] museum's director, Sara J. Bloomfield, says in the catalogue to the exhibition, 'During the Holocaust, every institution established to uphold civilized values failed--the academy, the media, the judiciary, law enforcement, the churches, the government and, yes, the medical and scientific disciplines as well.'" apparently, we in the 21st century have learned very little from history.

many deny any possibility of this becoming a slippery slope issue. i say, tell that to 5.6 million jews.

Labels:

Saturday, November 13, 2004

conspiracy, aye?

if the saturday edition of the calgary herald is to be believed, it would appear that the canadian intelligence has uncovered a massive conspiracy by the bush administration. as it turns out, vice president dick cheney has not only been accused of being the so-called "puppet master" behind the bush presidency, he has also allegedly replaced the actual secretary of state, donald rumsfeld, and has been disguising himself as the secretary for the past two years. Speaking on condition of anonymity, an advisor close to the vice president has said that cheney felt a more experienced war planner was needed in the current fight against terror...film at eleven.

"Vice-President Dick Cheney wipes his eyes during
a victory address by President Bush at the Ronald
Reagan Building in Washington, DC on Nov.3."
(AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
(NOTE: apparently, someone contacted the calgary herald after the saturday edition was published and educated them on current u.s. administration officials. the paper has since pulled the photo of Donald Rumsfeld and the accompanying caption...ah, those wacky canadians! they really are superior to americans, aren't they? just like they've always told us.)

Labels:

Friday, November 12, 2004

no mr. rogers

yesterday marked the death of yasser arafat (officially, i think, unless they were mistaken again). during the past week as he was swooning between life and death, i found myself feeling something strange towards him...a strange sense of compassion. i think it has to do with the fact that he was an old, frail man who appeared so fragile and helpless with his little knit night-cap on and his big baby smile plastered on his face, surrounded by all his adoring "children" while boarding the helicopter to take him to a hospital in paris. what a gentle, caring man he must be. ok, back to reality. time has a way of softening the edges of a life, sometimes leading one to forget the atrocious past, as in the case of the 86 year old man arrested in january for nazi war crimes. this poor old guy shouldn't be bothered now, should he? look at him. he's close to death and should be let alone to enjoy the last few remaining years in peace...except for the fact that this man is accused of the heartless, cold-blooded murder of at least 146 people in 1945, most of whom were defenseless women and children. no, too many times, looks can be deceiving. likewise, arafat was no mr. rogers with a heart of compassion who just wanted the world to be a better place. he was an old, worn out terrorist surrounded by his disciples who had spent the better part of his life encouraging terror and murder to support his own twisted political agenda.

summarizing the life of arafat, neil steinberg of the chicago sun-times states, "The man is a killer. Not only has he killed people himself, personally, but he plotted and organized murders of hundreds of victims. He is one of the authors of a philosophy of random murder that has inspired millions. That he spent years as a sham statesman, received in the White House and heaped with honors is one of the mind-boggling ironies of our ironic age. The man was given the Nobel Peace Prize, which washed away whatever shred of worth that might have clung to the once-respected bauble after they gave it to Henry Kissinger. They might as well pack the thing in a box of manure and straw when they hand out the next one." in describing arafat's leadership as the head of the plo, he goes on to say, "Arafat's worst crime? He betrayed his own people. He could have led them to peace, and instead led them down a blind alley to self-destruction and disaster."

no, arafat was no great leader, statesman, or gentleman. he was, instead, a misguided, foolish old man who led a trusting people down a road to near self-destruction. his was no life to celebrate, but it is one we had better not soon forget. for too long, world leaders listened to this man, reasoned with him and, to some degree, placed trust in his ability to garner a deal with his own people and lead the region into an era of peace and stability. fortunately, president bush came to realize arafat for the illegitimate "statesman" that he was and turned his back on him, leading to arafat's isolation and neutralization. perhaps now with the passing of yasser arafat, the palestinian people and the world at large can begin to move forward to a real "road map to peace" with palestine under new management.

for a good summary of arafat's life and legacy, read dr. al mohler's blog titled, "Moses in Reverse--The Real Yasser Arafat."

Labels:

Thursday, November 11, 2004