Banning Christianity

Free Republic has this report from Canada on what happens when a Catholic bishop stands up for the traditional teaching of the Church on matters of sexuality:

TORONTO, January 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an editorial appearing on the website of the homosexual activist group, "Equal Marriage," members of the lobbyist organization, EGALE, (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) have revealed their intention to make illegal the public practice of Christianity or teaching of Christian moral doctrine.

Bishop Fred Henry, in his recent pastoral letter on homosexuality, openly recognized that the purpose of the "gay marriage" push is the destruction of the traditional family and of any religious opposition. Bishop Henry wrote, "The goal (of changing the definition of marriage) is to acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society's rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance."

The authors of the EGALE editorial, Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell, in an enraged attack on Henry, admitted that the purpose behind the move to approve Gay "marriage" is the suppression of traditional Christianity. They wrote, "We predict that gay marriage will indeed result in the growth of acceptance of homosexuality now underway, as Henry fears. But marriage equality will also contribute to the abandonment of toxic religions, liberating society from the prejudice and hatred that has polluted culture for too long."

Bourassa and Varnell, apparently oblivious to the irony, indulge in a tirade of abuse, calling Bishop Henry a "religious extremist," "bigot," and "bishop of bigotry," and calling his preaching "toxic and prejudiced." They conclude with what has become one of the most common anti-Catholic slurs. "It's good to remember that bishops like him supported Hitler."

The group's assessment has been endorsed, albeit in more measured terms, in an editorial in the Toronto Star, Canada's most widely circulated newspaper, that said Henry had "disgrac(ed) his office and the Catholic church."

The Star editorial said, "This is a stand the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops should promptly distance itself from. So should leading individual Catholic prelates."

The Star editorialist, however, seems unaware that Bishop Henry has thus far stood alone in his defence of Catholic teaching on human sexuality. While the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops organization, has said that each bishop is free to say what he wants in his own diocese, no public endorsement or support has so far come to Henry from the heads of any of Canada's remaining 71 dioceses and eparchies.

While a few Ontario bishops have published altered versions of a generic pastoral letter encouraging their flock to ask MPs to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, unlike Henry, the bishops have all so far conspicuously avoided any mention of Catholic teaching on homosexual activity, its sinfulness and its harm to both the persons engaged in it and to the general society.

To send a note of support to Bishop Henry bishopfh@rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca

Much of the anti-Christian bigotry in evidence in the last election campaign is due to the fact that Christians, in the main, oppose both abortion on demand and gay marriage. Proponents of these practices realize that Christians are the only serious political threat they face. Except for politically insignificant Orthodox Jews and Muslims, no one else who opposes the right to kill unborn babies, or to marry members of the same sex, can adduce any substantive reason for their opposition other than that it offends them somehow.

Offended sensibilities, however, invariably collapse like wheat in a wind storm in arguments between antagonists who assume, as a point of departure, the value of individual rights. It is only those who believe that the behaviors in question offend the will of God who have any non-subjective grounds for resisting them, and their resistance frequently incurs the hatred of those who embrace the behavior. Let's hope that it does not get worse.

From the Feedback Forum

A reader writes to correct us on an error we made in a January 17th post titled Reply to a Muslim. I wrote there that the opinion among Muslims that we are trying to colonize the Arab world is misguided:

"[A Muslim] says that [Muslims] hate us because we're trying to colonize them, but where is the evidence of that? Did we stay in Kuwait? Did we not leave Saudi Arabia when the Saudis insisted? Did we colonize Afghanistan?"

To which our reader replies:

Actually, yes, we did stay in Kuwait (with the Kuwaiti government's cooperation, blessings, and partial funding). We have had a continuous military presence in Kuwait since the first Gulf war. I am a retired reserve military officer, and in 1998 I served at one of the two main American military bases in Kuwait. Those bases are still there, and have in fact been expanded since then. We never left Saudi, either. We still have air bases there (they were there before the Gulf war, and they are still there - we only withdrew the extra invasion troops that came to liberate Kuwait). We also have a large contingency of troops still in Afghanistan, as well as large military bases in Qatar and Bahrain.

None of these military presences are attempts at "colonization," of course, as they are all with the full support and cooperation of the various native governments involved (who give that support and cooperation out of their own self-interest, not ours). Our presence in the Arabian Peninsula has a dual purpose - both out of benevolence to discourage mischief by Iran, Syria, and other rogue states, AND out of protecting our own national self-interests against the radical regimes of the region (again, principally Iran, Syria and the remaining extremist factions in Iraq).

BP

BP is right, of course, and I thank him for the clarification (His e-mail can be read in its entirety at the Feedback Forum). What I should have said was that we didn't stay to colonize those countries; that our presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is similar to our presence in England, Germany, and South Korea. We have military bases there, but it would be difficult to make the case that these nations are colonies of the U.S.

Good Blog

A lot of blogs (I don't think I'll ever get comfortable with that word) specialize on a single theme while some seek a more eclectic audience. A good example of the latter is Loren Kohl's Almanac of the Mundane which has a lot of good reading on a lot of different topics. It takes a very bright guy to do the work he does on his site, and we recommend that our readers check him out.

A Speech For the Ages

A friend passes along this selection of opinions, culled from newspapers and commentators across the country, of George Bush's Second Inaugural Address:

Editorials and Op-Eds:

The Wall Street Journal: "Not Since JFK In 1960 Has An American President Provided Such An Ambitious And Unabashed Case For The Promotion Of Liberty At Home And Abroad." (Editorial, "Liberty Bell Ringer," The Wall Street Journal, 1/21/05)

David Broder, The Washington Post: Called The Speech, "Brief But Eloquent..." (David S. Broder, Op-Ed, "Big Goals, Unshakable Faith," The Washington Post, 1/21/05)

Broder: "[O]ne Essential Truth We Have Learned About Bush: His Faith That The Quest For Freedom Is A Universal Truth, Rooted In Human Nature And Intended By God." (David S. Broder, Op-Ed, "Big Goals, Unshakable Faith," The Washington Post, 1/21/05)

William Safire, The New York Times: "I Rate It Among The Top 5 Of The 20 Second-Inaugurals In Our History. Lincoln's Profound Sermon 'With Malice Toward None' Is Incomparable, But Bush's Second Was Better Than Jefferson's Mean-Spirited Pouting At 'The Artillery Of The Press.'" (William Safire, Op-Ed, "Bush's 'Freedom Speech,'" The New York Times, 1/21/05)

USA Today: "When George W. Bush Was Inaugurated For The First Time Four Years Ago, He Devoted Only Seven Sentences To Foreign Policy. Thursday, A More Seasoned And Confident Bush Delivered A Stirring Inaugural Call To The Longstanding American Ideal Of Spreading Freedom And Democracy Around The Globe." (Editorial, "Bush Shares A Stirring Vision. Now, How To Apply It?" USA Today, 1/21/05)

Los Angeles Times: "His Second Inaugural Address Was That Of A Large Man Indeed, Eloquently Weaving The Big Themes Of His Presidency And His Life Into A Coherent Philosophy And A Bold Vision Of How He Wants This Country To Spend The Next Four Years." (Editorial, "No Country Left Behind," Los Angeles Times, 1/21/05)

New York Post: "President Bush Stood Tall Before America And The World Yesterday And Marked The Beginning Of His Second Term With An Affirmation Of Liberty That Will Resonate For Years To Come." (Editorial, "Bush's 2nd Inaugural," New York Post, 1/21/05)

John Harris, The Washington Post: "[T]he 21-Minute Address He Delivered At The Capitol Yesterday Was Startling In Its Reach." (John F. Harris, Op-Ed, "An Ambitious President Advances His Idealism," The Washington Post, 1/21/05)

Harris: "His Pledges To Promote Liberty And Aid The Oppressed, Along With Predictions Of The United States Leading The World To The Ultimate Triumph Of Democracy Over Tyranny In Every Land, Were Issued With Some Of The Most Expansive And Lyrical Language Bush Has Summoned." (John F. Harris, Op-Ed, "An Ambitious President Advances His Idealism," The Washington Post, 1/21/05)

Dallas Morning News: "The President, Exuding Both Gravity And Confidence, Was Indisputably Presidential. His Speech Embodied Everything That Makes Him The Leader He Is: Unembarrassed Religious Faith, Moral Certitude, Persistence, Determination And Self-Assuredness." (Editorial, "Values-Laden Vision: Bush Shines As He Delivers Second-Term Ideals," The Dallas Morning News, 1/21/05)

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "President George W. Bush Delivered An Eloquent, Idealistic Second Inaugural On Thursday That Was An Ode To America's Special Role In Promoting Freedom Around The World." (Editorial, "Bush's Second Inaugural: Ode To Freedom," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1/21/05)

The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer: "In A Scant 21 Minutes, Bush Delivered What May Have Been The Speech Of His Presidency, A Thematic Symphony Keyed To The Unalienable Rights Of People - The Same Truths This Nation's Founders Held To Be Self-Evident." (Editorial, "Bush's Call To Freedom," The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 1/21/05)

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "George W. Bush's Second Inaugural Address, Given In A Time Of War And Doubt, Was An Inspiring Call For Selflessness And Sacrifice. It Was A Call For Americans To Advance The Cause Of Freedom From Tyranny Worldwide." (Editorial, "A New Bush Doctrine?" Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 1/21/05)

Pundits:

NBC's Tim Russert: "Well-Crafted, Well-Delivered. The Themes Of Freedom And Liberty ... I Thought The Call To National Service Will Resonate With All Americans - Democrats, Republicans, Independents." (NBC's, "Special Coverage Of The 55th Inaugural," 1/20/05)

CBS News' Bob Schieffer Said Speech Was "Eloquent And The Rhetoric Lofty." (CBS' "Evening News With Dan Rather," 1/20/05)

ABC News' George Will: "It's Not Just The Survival Of Liberty He's About. He Is About The Expansion Of Liberty Into Every Nook And Crevasse Of The Planet." (ABC's "Inaugural Coverage," 1/20/05)

Howard Fineman, Newsweek: Called The Address "Powerful. I Think It Is The Biggest Statement Of American Purpose In The World Of Any President I Can Think Of. It Is Woodrow Wilson On Steroids. It's Big." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 1/20/05)

Dick Morris, Former Aide To President Clinton: "Was The Greatest [Inaugural Address] ... Since John F. Kennedy's And One Of The Five Or Sixth Greatest Of All Time. It Was Beautiful, It Was Poetic. ... And It Articulated A Bold New Doctrine For American Policy. It Was A Very Substantive Speech." (Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," 1/20/05)

Viewpoint: What happened to the MSM dogma that Bush was all hat and no cattle?

Bad News From Iraq

Bill Roggio cites an Arthur Chrenkoff tally that shows that on a single day, January 19th, the world's media ran 10,938 negative stories on Iraq, 123 which were neutral, and 407 which were positive. This despite the fact that as Chrenkoff's Good News From Iraq series has chronicled, the amount of positive news being generated in Iraq is enormous.

The reprehensible element of this is that, to the extent the American media have contributed to the lop-sidedness of this reporting, they are deliberately trying to sabotage the reconstruction effort in Iraq. And to this end they are willing to sacrifice Iraqi lives, to render American casualties vain, to thwart an historic opportunity to liberate millions of suffering people, and to alter the political dynamic of the Middle East for perhaps decades, even centuries to come, all because they don't want to see a Republican get the credit for whatever success Iraq enjoys. It is the basest of motives producing the most contemptible journalism.

Iraqi Election Ad

MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) has a video clip of an ad carried on Al Arabiya tv out of Iraq that is as poignant and powerful as it is brief. Go here and click on "view clip".

To see links to other such ads go here.

Three's Company, Four's a Marriage

Viewpoint has argued since our inception last May that legalizing same sex marriage will ultimately destroy marriage as an institution because it will remove any rationale for proscribing unions of any or all conceivable permutations. Once marriage is no longer limited to one man and one woman there is no logical basis for placing any limits on the number or gender composition of any union. When marriage can be anything at all it will cease to exist in any meaningful sense.

Now comes this story. from the Ottawa Citizen essentially placing an exclamation point at the end of the previous paragraph:

Just weeks before it introduces divisive same-sex marriage legislation, the federal government has launched an urgent study into the legal and social ramifications of polygamy. Critics say the study underscores a deep concern in the Martin government that legalized homosexual marriage may lead to constitutional challenges from minority groups who claim polygamy as a religious right.

It also suggests that the government is suspicious that multi-marriage is more commonplace in Canada than widely realized. Polygamy, outlawed in Canada but accepted and practised in many countries, typically means a man having several wives at the same time.

"In order to best prepare for possible debate surrounding Canada's polygamy policy, critical research is needed," says a Status of Women Canada document. "It is vital that researchers explore the impacts of polygamy on women and children and gender equality as well as the challenges that polygamy presents to society."

Conservative party justice critic Vic Toews says there is a direct link between the Status of Women concern and the same-sex marriage legislation due to be introduced by the government in February.

"This government understands it has a problem on its hands," said Mr. Toews, a former Manitoba constitutional lawyer. "What they are looking for is evidence to demonstrate that polygamy is inconsistent with Charter and Canadian values. If I was a lawyer prosecuting a polygamist that's the type of evidence I would be looking for."

But when same-sex marriage becomes legal, the door will open to more Charter challenges, said Conservative critic Mr. Toews. "Once you change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman and you move to two persons," he said, "what then is the distinction between two persons, or three or more persons? If I was a lawyer defending polygamists, I'd say 'hey this is a constitutional right, a freedom of religion.' Why can't freedom of religion trump this new definition of marriage?"

The article includes comments from lawyer Peter Hogg, who argued the federal government's case for same-sex marriage at the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Hogg said that he doubts legalizing homosexual marriage will lead to legal challenges from polygamists, but his reasoning sounds to us to be either naive or disingenuous.

"We have to recognize that over time society changes and marriage changes to mirror the attitude, mores and needs of a particular society," said Mr Hogg. "If some kind of cataclysm occurred to make women far more numerous than men for a long period of time then a significant movement might develop to change the institution of marriage to reflect that. But that is unlikely."

The fact that bigamy is a crime in Canada is also a huge obstacle for a polygamist launching a Charter of Rights challenge, he said.

"I don't think you can say there are any inexorable steps here," added Mr Hogg. "What has sparked the concern over same-sex marriage is a series of Charter decisions holding that opposite-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and you can't make arguments of that sort with respect to polygamy."

Mr. Hogg elides the real point. The issue is not whether bigamy is currently a crime or how the majority of people feel about marriage, it is rather whether there is or can be any legal or philosophical basis more solid than simply arbitrary preference for preventing groups of people of whatever gender combinations from marrying. The fact is that once marriage is separated from its Biblical definition and two thousand years of tradition there is nothing left to rest it upon. Any law against it will be overturned just as laws against sodomy have been overturned. The whole society may believe marriage should be limited to two people, but they have no grounds for imposing what is a mere personal preference upon others who decide that they are sexually oriented toward polyamory and want the right to marry for themselves.

Universism

A friend recommends to us the web site of the devotees of a religion which calls itself Universism. On their Main page the Universists ask a series of provocative questions:

What if there was a religion announcing no universal religious truth exists? The meaning of your existence is yours to determine.

What if there was a religion generating respect among all humanity by making us equals in the most important questions we will ever face?

What if there was a religion uniting freethinkers, including atheists, deists, transcendentalists, pantheists and agnostics?

What if there was a religion with no prophet or holy book?

What if there was a religion announcing no moral authority exists, religious or secular?

What if there was a religion born in 2003 that instantly included millions of people on the planet - maybe even you?

Would it even be a religion? Yes. But it's unlike anything you've ever seen before. Welcome to the future of religion. Welcome to Universism.

Universism is the world's first rational religion. Reaching to the heart of humanity's religious impulse, we have uncovered not faith, but mystery. Not complacency, but awe. We have found an essential element of the human experience in harmony with reason - not in spite of it. Universists know the fuller our understanding of the universe, the greater our appreciation for a reality beyond our imagination. We celebrate faith in reason, inspiration in nature, and hope in progress.

We don't have the space to say everything about this that we would like, so we'll just pick out a few items to critique. The Universists ask:

What if there was a religion announcing no universal religious truth exists? The meaning of your existence is yours to determine.

The Universists are off to an inauspicious start with this question. In addition to having selected for their name an exceedingly difficult word to pronounce, the implied answer to the question they pose is self-refuting. The claim that there are no universal truths about religion purports to be itself a universal truth about religion. So, if it's true then it's false.

Beyond that, if each of us is the sole author of the meaning of our existence then there really is no meaning, not in any but the most ephemeral sense. We live, we suffer, we die and when we die whatever we did in life makes no difference whatsoever. Eventually, the human race will die out, as will the earth and the sun, and no one's existence will have mattered at all. A human life has no more "meaning" or significance in a universe without God than does the life of an ant. Billions of years of time and an unimaginably vast cosmos render our lives and our achievements vanishingly quick and paltry.

What if there was a religion generating respect among all humanity by making us equals in the most important questions we will ever face?

Well, actually there is such a religion. It's called Christianity. Christianity has been virtually the sole engine for human equality throughout the last two thousand years of history. Racial and gender equality may have been slow in coming, but they have only come at all because of the convictions of Christian people in predominantly Christian nations. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the American ideal of political and legal equality derived from the Christian notion that all men are equal in the eyes of God. People who believed that we are all equal in the eyes of God, he wrote, could hardly deny equality to some in the eyes of the state.

What if there was a religion announcing no moral authority exists, religious or secular?

If there is no moral authority beyond ourselves then each of us is free to construct our own idea of right and wrong. Thus, whatever I decide to be right, no one else can say is wrong. Morality is purely subjective. All the great criminals and tyrants of history believed this very idea, of course, and it is a prescription for chaos and oppression.

We celebrate faith in reason, inspiration in nature, and hope in progress.

It is unclear what their faith in reason leads them to conclude about the world. Universists place their trust in reason to do what, exactly? To lead them to truth? What do they base this trust upon? If all of our cognitive functions are reducible, as the universist no doubt believes they are, to non-rational chemical reactions in the brain, what warrant does he have for believing that these non-rational processes reliably produce truth?

In order to justify his faith in reason the universist has to construct some sort of argument to show that reason is trustworthy, but arguments rely upon reason. Thus he has to use reason to demonstrate the trustworthiness of reason. He has to assume that reason is reliable which is the very thing he's trying to demonstrate. this, unfortunately, is irrational. In other words, faith in reason is no more rational, and perhaps less so, than faith in God.

In what sense, moreover, does nature inspire? Everything about nature that fills one with awe points away from the universist belief that nature is all there is. To be inspired is to be moved to express some feeling or sentiment. What feeling or sentiment is a universist moved to express? Awe? Wonder? At what, exactly? Our insignificance? The incredible complexity, intricacy, and order of the world? The beauty of the world? The first of these pretty much cancels out any hope for meaning to life, and the others point to a creative Mind behind nature.

The inspiration Universists experience as they contemplate the glories of the world and of life is fundamentally at odds with their basic assumption that the world is just the product of mindless, purposeless forces which, purely by accident and random coincidence, somehow brought it into being. This may be astonishing, but it's hardly inspiring.

What ground, finally, does the Universist have for hope in progress. Whatever moral progress man has made in his history has been largely the result of Judeo-Christian belief. It has likewise been frequently argued that our technological progress was also the fruit of the Christian worldview which prevailed in Europe and which saw creation as the product of a rational God. The physical and biological worlds were seen, therefore, as not only worthy of study but also spheres of mystery whose secrets would yield to rational inquiry.

But setting that aside, technological progress in a world where everyone determines their own morality and no one has any basis for choosing one moral opinion over another except their own preferences and biases means that technological achievements, if they can be sustained, will fall into the hands of the most ruthless, egoistic, and powerful among us. We can be assured that such men will not use the fruits of progress to benefit mankind. There's not much reason to exult in a "hope in progress" in such a world.

The President's Priorities

Commentators could be heard yesterday and today claiming that Social Security reform is the most important item on the President's domestic agenda. We don't know how the President sees it, but we don't think Social Security reform is as important right now as are some other much-needed reforms. We would argue that the most important item on the President's domestic agenda should be getting conservative judicial appointees approved. He has an excellent window of opportunity to accomplish this now, and he may not have it again after 2006.

After stocking the federal and Supreme courts with men and women who see their role as interpreting the law and the constitution and not as making law and amending the constitution, we hope the President tackles immigration, tort, and perhaps tax reform, along with reducing runaway health care costs.

Social Security reform, as important as it is, is not as critical in the near term as are these other matters, and it would be very unfortunate if these reforms were overlooked in the political hurley-burley of a fight to mend Social Security.

Dropping The F - Bomb

Some commentators heard echoes of Natan Sharansky in yesterday's Inaugural Address. Others, like Fraters Libertas, discerned the source of much of the Left's hatred for George W. Bush. Their remarks are worth reading in their entirety:

Why does the Left feel such a visceral hatred for George W. Bush? Look no further than today's Inaugural Address for the answer. It isn't because he's a unilateralist cowboy or that he believes in God and isn't afraid to say so. And it's not because of the "lies about WMD" or because he didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty.

No, it's all about one word. The F word. I imagine that your average Lefty would have been apoplectic if they actually listened to today's speech and heard Dubya drop the F-bomb twenty-seven times.

You see, as much as they would seek to deny it, FREEDOM is a dirty word to the Left. Oh sure, they like to spout off about how they're all for it, but when it comes down to the heart of the matter, most of their core beliefs contradict it. Can someone please tell me what anyone on the Left has done to advance the cause of freedom in the last thirty-five years?

Were they really interested in the freedom of the people of Vietnam? Or Laos or Cambodia? No. They were more interested in damaging the United States than actually helping those who would fall under the boot heel of communism in Southeast Asia.

What about the freedom of people behind the Iron Curtain? What did the Left's moral relativism during the Cold War do for them? Nada. Again, it wasn't about spreading freedom to oppressed people, it was about reflexively opposing the United States.

The same could be said for the people of Nicaragua and El Salvador. Or the Kuwaitis.

Today, it's the fate of the Afghanis and the Iraqis whom the Left pretends to be concerned about. But how much Leftist outrage did you hear about Afghanistan under the Taliban? And, other then the grossly exaggerated suffering that was attributed to sanctions, did you ever hear a peep from the Left about the brutal suppression of the Iraqi people under Saddam?

What of the Iranians? The North Koreans? The Left loves to kiss Castro's ass and strut around in their Che Chic outfits, but do they care about real freedom for the Cuban people? Hell, for that matter does anyone honestly believe that most Lefties would give a damn about the Palestinians if their cause wasn't a tool to use against Israel (and thus indirectly the United States)?

I'm not saying that Bush's crusade for freedom is based solely on the virtue of helping others attain what we so greatly cherish. There is obviously an American self-interest in seeing the world become more free (the rarity of democracies going to war and all that). But, the fact of the matter is that, whatever his motivations may be, George W. Bush has done more to advance the cause of freedom in the world than any president since Ronald Reagan. And like Reagan, the Left vilifies him for it.

And it's more than just the international front. While Bush's record is far from perfect on domestic matters, his push for tax cuts, reform of Social Security, and creating an "ownership" society are all about freedom. Freedom to keep more of your money. Freedom to invest for your retirement. Freedom to choose your health care options.

What do we get from the Left? Restrictions on what we can eat. Where we can smoke (if we're even allowed to smoke at all). Where we can live. What kind of car we can drive. Where are education tax dollars can be used. What we can say on college campuses. The list could go on and on.

The bottom line is that the Left despises George W. Bush because of his embrace of the one word that they can't abide: Freedom

Despite being marred by what seemed at times an awkward delivery, the content of today's speech was historic. Not just because of the principles the President articulated, although they were truly inspiring, but because unlike most speeches delivered by politicians, the world knows now that what George Bush says, he means.

The Left will object, as Jeannene Garafolo did tonight on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, that Bush's rhetoric about freedom rings hollow because he opposes a woman's right to kill her unborn child or because he opposes granting gays the freedom to marry, or because the Patriot act imposes onerous restrictions on Americans, or because the incarceration of radical Islamists in Guantanamo shows that Bush doesn't really care about freedom at all.

These cavils give further evidence, if any were needed, of the Left's increasing self-imposed irrelevance. People like Ms Garafolo would have us believe that unless one advocates letting everyone do anything they please one doesn't really favor liberty and justice at all. Americans, we are to assume, are toiling under the lash of oppression because we are denied gay marriage and other freedoms that truly liberated people enjoy. Perhaps Ms Garafolo might ask twenty five million Afghans, especially Afghan women, if they have a greater degree of liberty now, even though they don't have gay marriage and abortion on demand, or whether they were freer under the Taliban. Perhaps she might ask twenty five million Iraqis, particularly the Shi'ia and the Kurds, if they are freer now, even though some of them were wrongfully abused at Abu Ghraib, than they were under Saddam Hussein. We suspect that many of them would regard the inquiry as the question of a hopeless naif, and refrain from laughing in Ms Garafolo's face only out of courtesy and pity.

George Bush's speech yesterday raised the anxiety level of oppressors everywhere and gave hope to millions of people who still groan under the weight of tyranny. It was a speech for the ages.

On the Democratic Fringe

Not many Democrats understand that America is still largely a Christian nation and that explicitly secularist agendas will not play well with the majority of voters. Hillary Clinton is one of the few who does, however, and she evidently intends to play her understanding to advantage over the next few years as she seeks to position herself for a run at the presidency in 2008. The following excerpt is from a Boston Globe story:

On the eve of the presidential inauguration, US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last night embraced an issue some pundits say helped seal a second term for George W. Bush: acceptance of the role of faith in addressing social ills. In a speech at a fund-raising dinner for a Boston-based organization that promotes faith-based solutions to social problems, Clinton said there has been a "false division" between faith-based approaches to social problems and respect for the separation of church of state.

"There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles," said Clinton, a New York Democrat who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008.

Addressing a crowd of more than 500, including many religious leaders, at Boston's Fairmont Copley Plaza, Clinton invoked God more than half a dozen times, at one point declaring, "I've always been a praying person."

She said there must be room for religious people to "live out their faith in the public square."

The issue of faith in politics has been at the center of debate following the presidential election, with some arguing that Bush's strong identification with religious values was a key to his victory over Senator John F. Kerry.

Whether Senator Clinton is sincere or not is another question. Right now she seems to be at least saying the things which will distinguish her from the Michael Moore/Ted Kennedy wing of the party. We look for Hillary to continue to define herself well to the right of the Democratic mainstream. It really will be ironic if, two years from now, her political opponents in her own party start hinting that Hillary Clinton is a fringe candidate and an extremist.

Most Influential Spokesperson

The Barna Group has the results of a survey that asks Christian pastors to name the individuals who have the greatest influence on the Church in the U.S., and who they regard to be the most trustworthy spokespersons for Christianity. Here's a summary of just part of their findings:

Greatest Influence On Churches:

The 614 Senior Pastors interviewed were asked to identify up to three individuals whom they believe have the greatest influence on churches and church leaders in the U.S. Pastors named more than 300 different individuals, but only 10 of those leaders were listed by 4% or more of the clergy. Billy Graham was chosen by 34% of the pastors, with Rick Warren (pastor of Saddleback Church and author of the multimillion-selling book, The Purpose-Driven Life) second with 26%. The only other individuals listed by at least 10% were President George Bush (14%) and radio broadcaster and family advocate James Dobson (11%).

Other influencers who were among the ten most frequently listed were Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek Community Church (9%); Bishop T.D. Jakes of The Potter's House (7%); author and motivational speaker John Maxwell (6%); researcher and author George Barna (5%); Pope John Paul II (5%); and author and speaker Max Lucado (4%).

Most Trusted Spokesperson:

Billy Graham also led the pack as the most trusted spokesperson for Christianity, garnering the support of six out of ten pastors (58%). James Dobson was a distant second, with 20% naming him, followed by the 14% who identified Rick Warren. T.D. Jakes placed fourth (7%), followed by veteran pastors Charles Swindoll and Jerry Falwell, each at 6%; and by Bill Hybels and author and prison ministry pioneer Charles Colson (5%). Pastor D. James Kennedy, President Bush, broadcaster Pat Robertson, and author Max Lucado rounded out the top ten individuals, each mentioned by 4% of the clergy.

Billy Graham has had an enormous impact on Christianity in this country and around the world over the last half century and his legacy will ripple and reverberate throughout this century and doubtless into the next. Indeed, it may be that no one since St.Paul will have had a greater impact for the Gospel than has Graham.

Even so, it seems that at the present moment the nod for most influential has to go to Rick Warren. No one has done more to energize the Church in the last few years than has Warren. His influence is different than Graham's because his ministry is different, but millions of people have been inspired by his books and their participation in the small fellowship groups that use them to reorient and recommit their lives to Christ.

We would not be at all surprised to learn that Rick Warren is not only one of the most influential leaders in Christianity right now, but that he has also been one of the most influential people in our society as a whole for the last three or four years.

Not One Damn Dime Day

Tomorrow is "Not One Damned Dime Day" in America. It's being promoted as a way to protest the war in Iraq and the inauguration of war-monger Bush:

Since our leaders don't have the moral courage to speak out against the war in Iraq, Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Damn Dime Day" in America.

On "Not One Damn Dime Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending.

During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money, and don't use your credit card. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime for necessities or for impulse purchases. Nor toll/cab/bus or train ride money exchanges. Not one damn dime for anything for 24 hours.

On "Not One Damn Dime Day," please boycott Walmart, KMart and Target. Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter).

For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down. The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it.

"Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics.

"Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now 1,200 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan -- a way to come home.

There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed.

For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.

Having been caught up in the spirit of Leftist protest we here at Viewpoint stalwartly intend to join millions of others in spending no money tomorrow in order to "shut the retail economy down." Of course, if we are successful we will inflict the most grievous financial hurt on the little folk who staff the Wal-Marts, pump the gas, drive the busses and cabs, etc.

If those single moms and beleaguered dads struggling to feed and clothe their kids are not harmed by our boycott, well, then that would tell us, unfortunately, that our protest was a failure. So, either we inflict pain upon the little people, or we don't. If we do, we can celebrate our success in bringing increased economic misery to tens of millions of low-income workers. If, however, they regrettably survive our efforts unscathed then we can at least take comfort in knowing that we tried hard to make their lives tougher and their kids hungrier.

This Left-wing logic is really pretty easy once you get the hang of it.

Pale Blue Dot

The service which sends us the Daily Philosophical Quotation the other day offered this one by the late Carl Sagan:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed.' Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'

Actually, Sagan was not quite right about this. Once Big Bang cosmology came to be understood, at least in its major outlines, many Christians began to realize that the age and vastness of space had marvelous theological implications. For one thing, the extravagance of creation which people like Sagan think argues against conceiving of man as somehow significant and certainly against the view that man is central to creation, actually does the opposite.

According to the Big Bang hypothesis, the universe began in a primordial explosion of space-time and enormously hot energy, which cooled as it expanded, and from which the first generation of stars precipitated. The theory has it that those stars "lived" for billions of years, compressing protons in their cores into heavier and heavier elements and eventually dying and exploding themselves, creating even heavier elements in their death throes, and spewing this chemical debris into space where millions or billions of years later it would be captured by the gravitational tug of younger stars and condense into planets.

If God did indeed choose to form galaxies and solar systems in some fashion such as this then there are remarkable implications. It took, on this model, thirteen billion years, for the universe to produce the conditions necessary for life to exist on this singular "pale blue dot", to borrow from the title of one of Sagan's books, and all that while the universe was expanding. In other words, the process of preparing a world suitable for human habitation took thirteen billion years of cosmic evolution and all that time the cosmos was growing at unimaginable speed.

Thus for us to be here at all, given the means God employed to create us, the universe has to be just about as old as it is and consequently just about as large as it is. Its age and its size are consequent upon the choices that God made in fashioning it. We, then, really are at the center of the universe. Not geographically, of course, as the ancients thought, but ontologically. It exists as it does so that we could exist as we do.

Just as ecosystems, in order to sustain certain species of animals and plants, has to transition through many stages of development and has to encompass a certain minimum size, so, too, does the universe have to be at a certain stage of development and of a certain dimension in order for life to emerge and thrive anywhere in it.

When looked at this way, the vastness and scope of the universe astonish us even more than they would otherwise. We are left speechless at the fact that God did all of this just so that we could inhabit a tiny speck of it, just so that we could be.

Second Term

As the Presidential Inauguration draws nigh we thought our readers might enjoy this amusing piece of political humor sent along to us by Dick F.

How to Get it Right

Mark Pinsky writing for the Columbia Journalism Review talks about his experiences as a religion writer for the Orlando Sentinel in getting to know that exotic life-form known as the Christian evangelical. Some excerpts:

For the first time in my life, I was living in a sea of believing, faithful Christians, and the cold shock felt like total immersion. As on the West Coast, I learned a lot on the job, interviewing ministers, leaders, and lay people. I attended church services more often than many Christians - some months more often than I attended my own synagogue. But the most intense part of my education came from outside the job, apart from the mediation of a reporter's notebook. At PTA meetings, at Scouts, in the supermarket checkout line, and in my neighborhood I encountered evangelicals simply as people, rather than as subjects or sources of quotes for my stories. Our children went to the same birthday parties. We sat next to each other in the bleachers while the kids played recreational sports. Our family doctor went on frequent mission trips and kept a New Testament in each examining room. In the process, I learned about the Great Commission, the biblical obligation of all Christians to share their faith with the once-born and the unsaved.

Evangelicals were no longer caricatures or abstractions. I learned to interpret their metaphors and read their body language. From personal, day-to-day experience I observed what John Green at the University of Akron has discerned from extensive research: evangelicals were not monolithic nor were they, as The Washington Post infamously characterized them, "poor, uneducated and easy to command." Like Ned Flanders, they are more likely to be overzealous than hypocritical, although there is certainly some of the latter. They don't march in lockstep to what Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Focus on the Family's James Dobson tell them, and they hold surprisingly diverse views on many issues. While making common cause politically, their theological differences range from the subtle to the significant. For evangelicals, religion is not just for Sundays - or Election Day.

This epiphany - it would be hard to call it anything else, except maybe a revelation - transformed the way I approached my beat. I discarded the traditional way of structuring my stories. No more, "While some wacko evangelical leaders over here say this, these rational secularists and moderate mainliners over there say that," with an author or academic in the middle tossed in for balance. While symmetrical, this is so schematic that it makes the result predictable and unrevealing. Instead, I decided to treat evangelicals as a discrete universe. I started to write about them in a way that would be interesting and informative to my suburban, Sunbelt readers - and to me. That is, "Some evangelicals say this, but others disagree," and why and what that means.

Despite the blustering of some leaders, I think I know why grass-roots evangelicals do not feel triumphant about the [election] results. True, in states like Florida they see Republican control of all branches of government, from Tallahassee to Washington, D.C. Conservatives and Christians dominate the AM radio dial, and the Fox News Channel leads the local cable television ratings. But despite all this, many of my evangelical friends and neighbors still feel besieged, beleaguered, and, to some degree, powerless.

The threat they cannot defeat at the polls is a pervasive, popular culture they consider to be, for the most part, a toxic mix of loveless sexuality and senseless violence. As a parent, a media consumer, and - in my heart - a blue-stater, I have to agree with them on this point, adding to the mix only my personal (elitist?) complaint: pop culture's relentless stupidity.

This is not to say that I agree with them on much else, politically or theologically. Yet neither does it keep me from understanding the sincerity of their beliefs, or from reporting them fairly. I may be flattering myself, but over time I think I have developed a relationship of mutual trust and mutual respect with the evangelical community and its leaders. Of course, that doesn't mean they've given up trying to bring me to Jesus. That's what evangelicals do, it's in their spiritual DNA, and I'm okay with that.

Kudos to Mr. Pinsky for his willingness to immerse himself in the culture he's reporting on and for exhibiting so much security in his own convictions that he doesn't feel threatened by those of others. Would that every journalist who writes on Christianity be as equally conscientious in their wish to get the story right rather than just reinforce Hollywood stereotypes.

Thanks to No Left Turns for the tip.

Sicko-Magnets

Lest anyone think that the Left is comprised of highly caring, highly educated, exemplars of reasoned discourse check out Michelle Malkin's column from the other day in which she shares some of her e-mail. Michelle is a conservative who sometimes takes controversial positions, but the sheer loathesomeness of the hate that she elicits is beyond all rational explanation. There are a lot of demented, embittered people out there on the Left, people in an advanced stage of spiritual and moral putrefaction, and she and Ann Coulter seem to draw them like sicko-magnets.

We suppose there are people just as bad on the Right, but the point is that ever since the sixties we've been told that hatred was the monopoly of the Right and that the Left was the party of peace, love, compassion, and justice. If you still believe that after the recent election campaign go to Malkin's site to be deprogrammed.

Meanwhile, as long as you're reading Malkin, check this story out. It's chilling. We wonder: Did the authorities interrogate the cleaning crew? What did they learn? We also wonder why we haven't heard about this through MSM news outlets.

The Algerian Model

Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail directs our attention to a piece written by Amir Taheri in Arab News which offers striking parallels between what we see happening in Iraq today and what happened in the early '90s in Algeria. Part of Taheri's column follows:

For more than 10 years the terrorists held the initiative, attacking where and when they wished, forcing the government's forces into a defensive posture. The terrorists specialized in mass killings. In Bin Talha, a suburb of the capital Algiers, for example, they cut the throats of some 800 people, mostly women and children, in a single night. They also targeted the ordinary personnel of the army and the police, in the hope of discouraging young Algerians from enlisting in government forces.

The Algerian terrorists never came up with anything resembling a political program. They just killed people. They killed children on their way to school. They chopped the heads of Christian monks and Muslim muftis. They murdered trade unionists, political leaders, and journalists. They captured teenage girls and forced them into temporary marriages with "the holy warriors." They seized hostages, burned schools and hospitals, blew up factories and shops, and did all they could to disrupt the economy. At times they pulled off spectacular coups, for example by murdering the country's president, and its most prominent trade union leader.

The terrorist campaign had started in the mid-1980s with a bandit, named Mustafa Bu-Ali, wreaking havoc in the environs of the capital. By 1990, however, the terrorists and their political allies had established themselves as a force in national politics. In 1991 they came close to winning power with a mixture of violence and electoral fraud. By 1992, however, they had reverted to a strategy of murder and mayhem.

They pursued two objectives. The first was to destroy the Algerian Army by killing as many recruits as they could in the hope that this would provoke mass desertions. The second was to prevent the holding of any elections. "Democracy means the rule of the people," Antar Zu'abri, one of the most notorious of the terrorist chiefs, killed in action in the 1990s, liked to say. "Those who want the rule of the people defy the rule of God, which is Islam."

By 1994 the terrorists seemed to be close to victory. At least, Francois Mitterrand, France's president at the time, thought so. In a statement he said Paris was prepared to work with an "Islamic" regime in Algiers. At least four provinces and parts of the capital Algiers were deemed too dangerous for government forces to enter.

On some occasions the terrorists demonstrated their strength by engaging government forces in big battles, including one in Jijel which involved both the Algerian Navy and Air Force. Visiting Algiers in March 1994 I was struck by the mood of doom and gloom at almost every level of government. European ambassadors confided their fear that the terrorists might seize power at any time. A segment of the elite was urging negotiations with the terrorists, which meant discussing terms of surrender.

After a long moment of tergiversation in which the Algerian leaders did not know quite how to deal with the threat, they stumbled on a strategy almost by instinct. They soon realized that the terrorists lacked a significant popular base. But it was also clear that a majority of Algerians had adopted a wait-and-see attitude, hating the terrorists in secret but too frightened of them to make a clear stand against them in public. The key, therefore, was to mobilize the "silent majority" to demonstrate the isolation of the terrorists.

The most effective way to do that was to hold elections. Few people are prepared to die, and even fewer are willing to kill in support of their political opinions. But almost everyone is ready to vote. The task of a civilized society is to render the expression of political opinions easy. The terrorists made it difficult because they demanded of the people to kill and died. The Algerian leaders decided to make it easy by asking the people to vote.

The turning point came in 1995 when Algeria organized its first ever pluralist and direct presidential election. This is was not an ideal election. The candidates were little known figures that had appeared on the national political scene just a couple of years earlier. None presented a coherent political program. To make matters worse the terrorists did all they could to prevent the election. They burned down voter registration bureaus and murdered election officers. Masked men visited people in their homes and shops to warn that going to the polls would mean death.

And, yet, when polling day came it quickly became clear that the terrorists, in the forlorn attempt at stopping democracy, were, as in so many other instances in history, facing certain defeat. Never in my many years of journalism had I seen such enthusiasm for an electoral exercise anywhere in the world. The "silent majority" spoke by casting ballots, not because it particularly liked any of the candidates but because it wanted to send a message to the terrorists that they had no place in Algeria.

That one election did not make Algeria a democracy. Since then Algeria has held three more presidential and a dozen local and parliamentary elections. None of these exercises have been perfect, and Algeria may need dozens more elections, which means many more years, before it can achieve the standards set by mature democracies. But the Algerian exercise has made one fact clear: The only way to defeat terrorism is by involving the mass of the people through elections.

Algeria was the first major Arab country to be attacked by Islamist terrorists on a large scale. It is also the first to defeat them.

The Algerian experience holds many lessons for Iraq today. The terrorist insurgents operating in Iraq pursue the same strategy as their Algerian colleagues in the 1990s. Zarqawi and other terror chiefs are also trying to disrupt elections while, by killing recruits, preventing the formation of an Iraqi national army. Copy-catting their Algerian counterparts, the terrorists in Iraq have also assassinated many high profile officials and politicians. But like the Algerians, they, too, will learn that in a democracy no individual is indispensable.

Iraq's first ever free election, scheduled for Jan. 30, will confront the terrorists with the people's power just as Algeria did in 1995. This is why it is vital that the election be held on time and in as many parts of the country as possible. Using elections to defeat terrorism could become the key to the future of several other Arab countries.

The similarities between the two situations are indeed striking, but we have good reason to hope that the results in Iraq will surpass those in Algeria. Algeria did not have the amount of foreign assistance that Iraq has nor was it as wealthy a country nor was its population as well-educated.

The radical Islamists have a dream of creating Taliban-like states, first throughout the Muslim world, and ultimately across the globe. They tried in Algeria and lost. They've been thwarted in Pakistan. Libya seems to have lost interest. They succeeded for a time in Afghanistan and were deposed. They've succeeded in Iran and Syria for the time being. But failure in Iraq, coming so close to the loss of Afghanistan, would be devastating to their hopes.

Iraq is only one battle in this long war, and Islamist failure there won't mean the end of Islamo-fascism, but it will considerably diminish their prospects for ultimate success. The stakes could scarcely be higher.

Good News From Iraq No.19

Arthur Chrenkoff's fortnightly installment of Good News From Iraq is up. This is Chrenkoff's 19th edition and his work cannot be praised enough. Ranging from developments with the coming elections to the economy to security with lots of others in between, Chrenkoff gives us a massive amount of information that the MSM cannot be bothered to report since it doesn't fit their defeatist philosophy. Don't miss it.

Martin Luther King

Watching some of the tributes this evening to Martin Luther King I wondered: If King's I Have Dream speech and his Letter From a Birmingham City Jail were delivered/written today would someone without any prior knowledge of King think the principles he articulated in these were conservative or liberal (or neither)?