Heading For the Dark Ages

Andrew Sullivan espies the "Christianist" barbarians at the gates and ominously offers this letter from Samuel Alito to James Dobson as proof of their nefarious perfidy. If, after all, Supreme Court justices are expressing gratitude to supporters for their prayers during a difficult time in their lives can theocracy be far behind?

Dear Dr. Dobson:

This is just a short note to express my heartfelt thanks to you and the entire staff of Focus on the Family for your help and support during the past few challenging months. I would also greatly appreciate it if you would convey my appreciation to the good people from all parts of the country who wrote to tell me that they were praying for me and for my family during this period.

As I said when I spoke at my formal investiture at the White House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force. As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me.

I hope that we'll have the opportunity to meet personally at some point in the future.In the meantime my entire family and I hope that you and the Focus on the Family staff know how we appreciate all that you have done.

Sincerely yours,

Samuel Alito

And you thought Islamism was an imminent threat. Wait until those reactionary "Christianists" succeed in blocking progressive reforms in our marriage laws and begin rolling back a mother's right to kill her unborn baby. We're headed for the Dark Ages for sure.

Anti-Totalitarian Manifesto

Agora and a number of other blogs are reporting on a manifesto signed by twelve prominent intellectuals, several of them Muslims or former Muslims, which takes a courageous stand against the "new totalitarianism." The manifesto apparently originated in France, of all places, and has run in the Dutch paper Jyllands-Posten which originally published the infamous cartoons:

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism. We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject "cultural relativism," which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

12 signatures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Chahla Chafiq, Caroline Fourest, Bernard-Henri L�vy, Irshad Manji, Mehdi Mozaffari, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, Antoine Sfeir, Philippe Val, Ibn Warraq

Agora has brief bios of each of the signers. We anticipate violent, hate-filled protests around the world instigated by Muslims offended to the point of outrage that the signers of this manifesto would imply that Muslims are violent haters.

Telling Friend From Foe

You, like us, may have been wondering how in the world Muslims tell each other apart when they go on their frequent killing sprees. How, for example, does a Sunni distinguish a hated Shia from other Sunnis? Do people often get killed as a result of mistaken identity? Does it matter to the killers who they kill or are they content just to have shot somebody or blown people up?

Anyway, Daniel Engber has an enlightening column at Slate which helps answer the first of these questions. It turns out that a lot of it is in the name.

What Are the Arguments?

There's been lots of excitement in the media over the controversy surrounding the sale of control of our ports to the United Arab Emirates. Quite frankly we don't know whether this is a good idea or a bad one but we do know that not many arguments that have been raised against it make very much sense. People are all aflutter because the ports will be run by Arabs, but Saudi Arabia has been quietly administering nine of our ports without complaint from Chuck Schumer and other political opportunists in the Democratic party.

There is also much ululation about the fact that two of the 9/11 terrorists were from the U.A.E., but why does that mean we shouldn't allow the U.A.E. to do business with the U.S.? Timothy McVeigh was from New York state. Should New York be regarded as a threat to our national well-being? Okay, perhaps that's a bad question, but the point is that it's silly to condemn the country of origin of a terrorist. Jose Padilla is an American, after all. What should we conclude from that?

Our primary anxiety about the deal is that the Bush administration seems curiously, indeed recklessly, insoucient about protecting our borders, and the ports imbroglio just seems to be another example of their disregard for who controls access to our interior. That concern aside, however, we just don't see much in the way of argument being offered by the opponents to the deal. In fact, it seems like the Democrats just see it as an opportunity to grab some desperately needed national security cred from the president. The sudden concern for keeping all Arabs at arm's length is a bit laughable coming from the people who wax indignant over ethnic profiling at airports and the president's NSA eavesdropping program on al-Qaeda phone calls.

Peace Studies Stirs Dissent

Students in a Maryland high school are campaigning to get a "Peace Studies" course taught by retired newspaper reporter Colman McCarthy eliminated from the curriculum:

Last Saturday, Andrew Saraf sat down at his computer and typed out his thoughts on why the course -- offered for almost two decades as an elective to seniors at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School -- should be banned from the school. "I know I'm not the first to bring this up but why has there been no concerted effort to remove Peace Studies from among the B-CC courses?" he wrote in his post to the school's group e-mail list. "The 'class' is headed by an individual with a political agenda, who wants to teach students the 'right' way of thinking by giving them facts that are skewed in one direction."

He hit send.

Within a few hours, the normally staid e-mail list BCCnet -- a site for announcements, job postings and other housekeeping details in the life of a school -- was ablaze with chatter. By the time Principal Sean Bulson checked his BlackBerry on Sunday evening, there were more than 150 postings from parents and students -- some ardently in support, some ardently against the course.

Since its launch at the school in 1988, Peace Studies has provoked lively debate, but the attempt to have the course removed from the curriculum is a first, Bulson said. The challenge by two students comes as universities and even some high schools across the country are under close scrutiny by a growing number of critics who believe that the U.S. education system is being hijacked by liberal activists.

At Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Peace Studies is taught by Colman McCarthy, a former Washington Post reporter and founder and president of the Center for Teaching Peace. Though the course is taught at seven other Montgomery County high schools, some say B-CC's is perhaps the most personal and ideological of the offerings because McCarthy makes no effort to disguise his opposition to war, violence and animal testing.

"I do recognize that it is a fairly popular class," Saraf said. "But it's clear that the teacher is only giving one side of the story. He's only offering facts that fit his point of view."

... the Peace Studies course at Bethesda-Chevy Chase is unique for a number of reasons. Although a staff teacher takes roll and issues grades, it is McCarthy as a volunteer, unpaid guest lecturer who does the bulk of the teaching. He does not work from lesson plans, although he does use a school system-approved textbook -- a collection of essays on peace that he edited.

Uh, oh. This sounds to us as though the individual who is the primary instructor in the classroom is an uncertified teacher. In some states, like Pennsylvania, such insults to the protocols set forth by the educational bureaucracy can land a school district a substantial fine. We wonder how Bethesda-Chevy Chase is getting around this regulation, if indeed it is a regulation in Maryland, besides employing a certified teacher to take roll. Using a certified teacher as an attendance monitor certainly seems like a transparent, and cynical, ploy which may itself be a violation of the certification requirement.

Where's the Maryland State Education Association on this? Most state teacher associations demand that only certified teachers be allowed to teach in public school classrooms. Maybe this case is different because the teacher is volunteering. Or maybe it's different because the teacher happens to be a bona fide lefty. Who knows?

Whither Dick Cheney?

This will have the Left dancing in the streets like Palestinians after 9/11. Insight Magazine is reporting that Dick Cheney will step down from the Vice Presidency soon after the midterm elections in the Fall of this year. The reasons they give make sense:

The sources reported a growing rift between the president and vice president as well as their staffs. They cited Mr. Cheney's failure to immediately tell the president of the accidental shooting of the vice president's hunting colleague earlier this month. The White House didn't learn of the incident until 18 hours later.

Mr. Cheney's next crisis could take place by the end of the year, the sources said. They said the White House was expecting Mr. Cheney to defend himself against charges from his former chief of staff, Lewis Libby, that the vice president ordered him to relay classified information. Such a charge could lead to a congressional investigation and even impeachment proceedings.

If Mr. Cheney is indeed in legal trouble then he will be a liability to the administration and probably should resign. Even so, we hate to see him go. In addition to his hard-headed common sense, he brings a refreshing disdain for the enthusiasms of the MSM to the White House, a disdain that only someone with no future political ambitions could afford to indulge. We hope he stays, and if he doesn't we'll miss him.

The Culture Wars Shift Battlefields

Now that Sandra Day O'Connor has left the Supreme Court the cultural conflict over abortion is heating back up. The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case next Fall that will determine whether a federal ban on partial birth abortion will be upheld. Partial birth abortion is called that because it involves a procedure:

...generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.

You might think that sounds a lot like infanticide. If so, you understand why the legislature has been trying to ban the practice for fifteen years. Two previous attempts were vetoed by President Clinton who could see no contradiction at all between this practice and the widespread belief that we live in a civilized nation.

South Dakota has passed legislation that would ban all abortions in the state except in cases where the mother's life is in physical jeopardy if she takes the baby to term. Challenges to this law will surely wend their way through the court system and, in due course, make their way before the Supreme Court. If so, there are four almost certain votes to strike down the South Dakota law (Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer) and two almost certain votes to uphold it (Thomas and Scalia). The three unknowns are Kennedy, Roberts, and Alito. If just one of them joins the four liberals then Roe will survive, at least for a few more years. The most likely of the unknowns to join the liberals seems to be Anthony Kennedy, but it's not clear that he would. If there's another retirement (Stevens and Ginsberg are most likely) before South Dakota makes it to the Supreme Court then everything will depend on who takes the retiree's place. The Alito hearings will seem like a cub scout initiation by comparison to the hearings that that nominee will face.

Even if the court eventually fails to sustain South Dakota's law the issue is going to keep coming back. It required a complete abandonment of common sense for the majority in Roe to find in the constitution a justification for taking abortion law out of the purview of the states and enough state legislatures are willing to test the newly constituted court that more of them can be expected to advance their own attempts to curb the practice of abortion.

It has always intrigued me that pro-choicers were so afraid to have states decide this issue. Up until recently they have insisted that the overwhelming majority of people in this country supported a "woman's right to choose," but if they truly believe this, why do they worry about allowing state legislatures, which are quite sensitive to the will of the voters, to legislate what the law on abortion will be in the several states? They should be confident that the legislatures will vote to keep abortion safe and legal. They are not confident, however, because they don't really believe that abortion rights enjoy the popularity and support that their rhetoric claims they do.

If Roe is ultimately overturned then the people will decide, through their state legislators, whether, and to what extent, they want abortion legal in their state. It'll be refreshing to see law actually being made by the people elected to perform that task instead of by nine justices who are accountable to no one.

A Truly Great Man

It says something about our culture that the news outlets have duly reported the deaths in recent days of three actors, Don Knotts, Dennis Weaver, and Darin McGavin, but the death of perhaps the most culturally consequential writer of the last fifty years has gone almost completely unremarked. As we noted yesterday, Henry Morris was a giant in terms of the influence he exerted on the debate over the efficacy of natural selection and mutation to account for the phenomena of living things. Virtually everyone on the spectrum of those who are skeptical of the ability of mechanistic processes and forces to by themselves produce living organisms was deeply influenced by him, notwithstanding their disagreements with his young earth creationism.

Even many of those firmly in the materialist camp still felt compelled to address his arguments. At a time when there were scarcely any who could be found to carry the argument for creation to the secular world Henry Morris and a small band of like-minded colleagues waged their solitary struggle against enormous odds with dignity and courtesy.

Total vindication of his efforts may never come, but the American landscape is covered today with a forest of skeptics and dissenters from the Neo-Darwinian paradigm who are carrying on the battle that Morris began. Long after the movies of the departed actors have faded from memory, Henry Morris' legacy will still be ramifying throughout the institutions of our culture. He truly was a great man.

See here for William Dembski's thoughts on Morris' life.

England is Alabama

Things are looking bleak for the future of British medicine:

A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists.

One member of staff at Guys Hospital site of King's College London said that he found it deeply worrying that Darwin was being dismissed by people who would soon be practising as doctors.

Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. "The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism," she said, "and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. They have extensive booklets on creationism which they put in my pigeon-hole ... it's a bit like the southern states of America." Many of them came from Muslim, Pentecostal or Baptist family backgrounds, she said, and were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists.

Gosh. Can you imagine? Like the southern states of America. Next thing they'll speaking with a drawl and driving on the right side of the road.

I'd like to issue a challenge to anyone who wishes to take it up. Set aside for a moment the question whether materialistic evolution, intelligent design, or special creationism is true, and focus on answering the following two questions raised by the above article:

1) What practical or professional difference would it make to a pharmacist, a doctor, or a neuro-scientist whether they believed that the earth was created 10,000 years ago or 5 billion years ago?

2) What practical or professional difference would it make whether the doctor believed that man emerged from other primates by purely natural processes or was specially created by God to have a biology similar to that of primates?

If you wish to respond please use our feedback button to e-mail us your reply.

Oops!

"This is an administration that is going to be noted for its incompetence not its accomplishments." Senator Harry Reid 2/24/06

Unfortunately, the words had scarcely passed the Senator's lips when the news brought us this (2/27/06):

The US economy is set for a strong rebound in the first quarter of 2006, shaking off the hurricane-related weakness of the fourth quarter, a survey of business economists showed.

The survey of the National Association of Business Economists called for the economy to expand at a robust 4.5 percent pace in the current quarter -- the fastest since 2003 -- after a disappointing 1.1 percent annualized rate in the fourth quarter.

"The NABE panel sees the economy roaring back in early 2006 following the fourth quarter's tepid 1.1 percent growth," said Stuart Hoffman, NABE president and chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group. "Our forecasters expect the economy to shake off the effects of last years hurricanes and surging oil price."

Except for Ted Kennedy, no senator makes himself look more foolish more often than does Harry Reid.

The Armed Citizen

This is a fascinating and tragic story that illustrates the value of civilian "right to carry" firearm permits:

There were two big developments Monday in the case of a motorist who was shot and killed along Greenwell Springs Road Friday after a fight with a police officer. Investigators say an autopsy shows the deadly bullet was fired by a bystander, not the officer. Police also announced that no charges would be filed in the case, either against the police officer involved or the bystander who fired the fatal shot into the head of George Temple.

East Baton Rouge Sheriff's spokesman Greg Phares says Officer Brian Harrision was escorting a funeral procession Friday when he pulled Temple over and wrote him a ticket for breaking into the procession. According to Phares, that's when Temple attacked Harrison. Police say Perry Stevens was walking outside of the Auto Zone on Greenwell Springs Road when he heard Harrison yelling for help. Harrison was reportedly on his back with Temple on top of him. That's when Stevens went to his car and grabbed his .45 caliber pistol.

According to Col. Greg Phares, "[Mr. Stevens] orders Mr. Temple to stop and get off the officer. The verbal commands are ignored and Mr. Stevens fires four shots, all of which struck Mr. Temple."

Perry Stevens fired four shots into Temple's torso. Officer Harrison had already fired one shot into Temple's abdomen. With Temple still struggling with the officer, Perry continued to advance toward the scuffle.

"He again orders Mr. Temple to stop what he was doing and get off the officer. Those commands are ignored and he fires a fifth shot and that hits his head. The incident is over with, and as you know, Mr. Temple is dead."

Police are calling the shooting death justified. Perry Stevens has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Col. Phares would not give out any more details relating to the shooting. Both Phares and Baton Rouge Police Chief Jeff LeDuff stopped short of crediting Stevens with saving the officer's life. LeDuff says the entire incident is unfortunate.

"I spoke with his father at the scene briefly," said LeDuff. "I think this is a tragic situation all around."

9 News is told George Temple has a criminal record, and Officer Harrison was involved in a shooting while employed as a prison guard in East Baton Rouge Parish, where he was suspended for three days back in 1995.

It is astonishing that Mr. Temple was still fighting with the police officer after having been shot five times with large caliber bullets. It sounds as if he was under the influence of some sort of drug. There's more to the story:

A witness has come forward to change one key detail in that shooting involving a police officer which has caused such an uproar in Baton Rouge. Auto Zone store records place this witness in the parking lot as the fight and deadly shooting occurred. The witness tells a story not heard before, claiming he heard exactly what was said between the officer and shooting victim, George Temple. Out of fear of retaliation, the witness has requested his identity not be disclosed.

The witness says he was parked just a couple of spaces away from the black Mercedes George Temple was driving. At first, he didn't pay much attention to the man getting a ticket from the police officer, until he heard Temple and Officer Brian Harrison start to yell at each other. The witness says Temple called the officer a punk and said "you're just jealous of my car" not long after the officer and Temple started to struggle.

According to the witness, "You could here them muffled... 'Mother' this and that. 'I told you not to mess with me, I told you -- I'm a beast, I told you not to mess with me. I told you, I told you.' "

The witness says the officer took quite a beating.

Witness: "I mean, Mr. Temple was a big man."

Reporter: "What was the officer saying?"

Witness: " 'Help me, help me!' That's when he started screaming."

That's when a bystander in a neckbrace, Perry Stephens, shot and killed Temple. Even though the witness believes Stephens likely saved the officer's life, he does take issue with one part of Stephens' story. The witness says he never heard Stephens give a threat or a warning before he shot Temple.

"The man probably saved the officer's life... but he did not give out a warning," he says. "But if this would have been on a dark road, we would probably be looking for a cop killer, to be honest with you."

Stephens eventually ended the struggle between Temple and Harrison with a shot to the back of Temple's head.

"I heard [Temple] had a daughter, my heart goes out to the family. But Mr. Temple was aggressive to the officer. If [the officer] would have shot him, I probably wouldn't have even called [channel 9]."

The NAACP is upset with the officer, the investigation and the Baton Rouge Police Department's policies. The witness sees it differently. "I say the officer did everything he needed to do. If I would have been pulled over, I wouldn't have had an attitude, because the officer did everything he was supposed to do."

The witness says he doesn't want any trouble or attention. He says he just couldn't sit on the truth anymore.

Whether Mr. Stephens gave a warning or not is irrelevant to the significant point which is that were there no legally armed citizen at that scene there would apparently be yet another grief-filled funeral for a police officer who was also someone's son, husband, and/or father killed by a thug in the line of duty.

There was a time when it seemed to me that it was irrational to allow citizens to carry weapons in public. That opinion fell by the wayside many years ago as evidence mounted that armed and licensed citizens have saved thousands of lives, including their own, simply by virtue of possessing a weapon, even if it was merely displayed and not used. My former view was finally buried by a reading of John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime, a book I recommend to anyone who doubts that a society in which citizens are armed is actually safer for everyone than one in which only criminals carry weapons.

Pressroom Heroes

Tim Rutten in the LA Times blasts the American media for their pusillanimous non-response to Muslim intimidation while journalists throughout the Islamic world suffer imprisonment or death for writing sensible and truthful columns:

Timidity and indifference are a lethal combination.

It was bad enough when, one after another, major American and Western European news organizations capitulated to violent Islamic extremists and refused to let their readers or viewers see any of the cartoons depicting Muhammad that have triggered what amounts to a pogrom against Danes and other Westerners across the Muslim world. This craven abrogation of the standards by which news judgments normally are made was matched by the cringing, minor-key response that passed for diplomacy on the part of Washington and most of the European governments.

The Western news media's stampede for safety has created quite a draft, and left to swing in the wind are the courageous Arab journalists who printed some of the cartoons in connection with stories and editorials denouncing the violence.

To its credit, the New York Times this week reported that 11 journalists in five Mideastern countries now are facing prosecution for fully reporting this story. One of them is Jihad Momani. The government of the U.S.'s close ally, Jordan, thinks he committed a crime when he wrote:

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras, or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony?"

Truth inconveniences tyranny.

In Yemen, three journalists already are in jail and a fourth is a fugitive. A local imam says, "The government must execute them." Their crime? Writing editorials that urged fellow Muslims to avoid violence and to accept an apology from the Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, which first published the cartoons.

Eleven journalists facing prison, perhaps death, for the crime of publishing sense and where are the outraged editorials in American and European newspapers? Where are the letter-writing campaigns and protests on their behalf from their colleagues in the United States?

Indeed.

In defense of the American media, though, it's hard to devote time to foreign stories about journalists being persecuted for writing the truth when there's so much hay to be made over Dick Cheney's tardiness in informing the MSM that he'd been involved in a hunting accident. The media must allocate its limited resources to those matters which are most important and nothing is more important than pounding Dick Cheney every chance they get.

So if its journalistic courage you want to see, why then, just watch the pressroom heroes pin White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to the wall every time there's a press briefing. David Gregory even called him a "jerk" recently. Now that's genuine Congressional-medal-of-honor level heroism.

Henry Morris (1918-2006)

Word has come of the passing at age 87 of one of the most influential men on the American cultural scene for the last fifty years. Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, probably did more in that time than any other single individual (except perhaps his partner Duane Gish) to increase skepticism about the claims of materialistic evolutionists. In his many books he tirelessly pointed out the deficiencies of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and his work inspired thousands of others to question the fundamental assertions of the neo-Darwinians.

Morris was a Biblical literalist who held to an adamantine conviction that Genesis 1 and 2, and indeed the whole Bible, is true in all that it asserts. He thus found himself at odds with old-earth creationists like Hugh Ross and a little leery of intelligent design theorists who made no claims at all about Genesis. Morris believed that the earth and life were created in six days 10,000 years ago and that to waver from this belief was to jeopardize the trustworthiness of the scriptures. He had no time for theistic evolution and other variants of what he saw as a capitulation to the Darwinians. Nevertheless, even those who disagreed with him on these and other matters have been profoundly influenced by his critique of the inadequacies of all materialistic explanations of origins.

Whether one agreed with him or not, he performed valiant service in questioning the shibboleths of the Darwinian orthodoxy, challenging its votaries in public debate, and doing more, together with Gish, to raise public awareness of its weaknesses than anyone else since Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859.

Even when I disagreed with him he was a powerful influence on my own early thinking, and I owe him a lot. He has been around so long that even though he was of advanced years his death comes as a bit of a shock. He will be deeply missed by all who value his wonderful and indefatigable service.

Cui Bono?

Bill Roggio assesses the reports from Iraqi bloggers, the military, and news outlets and concludes that the threat of civil war in Iraq is abating. The Iraqi people are evidently calming themselves enough to ask of the Golden Dome mosque bombing, cui bono? There are lots of possibilities: Iran, "Mookie" al Sadr, Sunni insurgents, but the answer keeps coming up al-Qaeda. No one else, as Roggio points out, really benefits from destroying the mosque - no one except al-Qaeda, of course, which has been trying to foment civil war in Iraq for two years.

Al-Qaeda is indeed the obvious villain in this piece, but what's obvious is, unfortunately, often irrelevant when there's an excuse for disciples of the religion of peace to take to the streets to kill each other.

An Aussie Churchill

Where can we find politicians like this here in America? The following is the last part of a speech given recently by Peter Costello, Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia and likely heir to Prime Minister John Howard:

The Australian Citizenship Oath or Affirmation tries to capture the essence of what it means to be Australian, it reads as follows:

"From this time forward [under God] I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey."

To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty first:- loyalty to Australia. One pledges to share certain beliefs: democratic beliefs; to respect the rights and liberty of others; and to respect the rule of law.

There is a lot of sense in this pledge. Unless we have a consensus of support about how we will form our legislatures and an agreement to abide by its laws - none of us will be able to enjoy our rights and liberties without being threatened by others.

We have a compact to live under a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes. In doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected. Those who are outside this compact threaten the rights and liberties of others. They should be refused citizenship if they apply for it. Where they have it they should be stripped of it if they are dual citizens and have some other country that recognizes them as citizens.

Terrorists and those who support them do not acknowledge the rights and liberties of others - the right to live without being maimed, the right to live without being bombed - and as such they forfeit the right to join in Australian citizenship.

The refusal to acknowledge the rule of law as laid down by democratic institutions also stabs at the heart of the Australian compact. The radical Muslim Cleric Ben Brika was asked in an interview on the 7.30 Report in August last year:

"But don't you think Australian Muslims - Muslims living in Australia - also have a responsibility to adhere to Australian law?"

To which he answered: "This is a big problem. There are two laws - there is an Australian law and there is an Islamic law."

No, this is not a big problem. There is one law we are all expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the Australian Constitution. If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.

Our State is a secular State. As such it can protect the freedom of all religions for worship. Religion instructs its adherents on faith, morals and conscience. But there is not a separate stream of law derived from religious sources that competes with or supplants Australian law in governing our civil society. The source of our law is the democratically elected legislature.

There are countries that apply religious or sharia law - Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease. But not Australia.

And the citizenship pledge should be a big flashing warning sign to those who want to live under sharia law. A person who does not acknowledge the supremacy of civil law laid down by democratic processes cannot truthfully take the pledge of allegiance. As such they do not meet the pre-condition for citizenship.

Before entering a mosque visitors are asked to take off their shoes. This is a sign of respect. If you have a strong objection to walking in your socks don't enter the mosque. Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objections to those values don't come to Australia.

We need to be very clear on these issues. There are some beliefs, some values, so core to the nature of our society that those who refuse to accept them refuse to accept the nature of our society.

If someone cannot honestly make the citizenship pledge, they cannot honestly take out citizenship. If they have taken it out already they should not be able to keep it where they have citizenship in some other country.

Of course this is not possible for those that are born here and have no dual citizenship. In these cases we have on our hands citizens who are apparently so alienated that they do not support what their own country stands for.

Such alienation could become a threat to the rights and liberties of others. And so it is important to explain our values, explain why they are important, and engage leadership they respect to assist us in this process. Ultimately however it is important that they know that there is only one law and it is going to be enforced whether they acknowledge its legitimacy or not.

It will be a problem if we have a second generation - the children of immigrants who have come to Australia - in a twilight zone where the values of their parents' old country have been lost but the values of the new country not fully embraced. To deal with this we must clearly state the values of Australia and explain how we expect them to be respected.

I suspect there would be more respect for these values if we made more of the demanding requirements of citizenship. No one is going to respect a citizenship that is so undemanding that it asks nothing. In fact our citizenship is quite a demanding obligation. It demands loyalty, tolerance and respect for fellow citizens and support for a rare form of government - democracy.

People will not respect the citizenship that explains itself on the basis of the mushy multiculturalism I have described earlier. We are more likely to engender respect by emphasizing the expectations and the obligations that the great privilege of citizenship brings. We have a robust tolerance of difference in our society. But to maintain this tolerance we have to have an agreed framework which will protect the rights and liberties of all. And we are asking our citizens - all our citizens - to subscribe to that framework.

I do not like putrid representations like "Piss Christ". I do not think galleries should show them. But I do recognize they should be able to practice their offensive taste without fear of violence or a riot. Muslims do not like representation of the Prophet. They do not think newspapers should print them. But so too they must recognize this does not justify violence against newspapers, or countries that allow newspapers to publish them.

We are asking all our citizens to subscribe to a framework that can protect the rights and liberties of all. These are Australian values. We must be very clear on this point. They are not optional. We expect all those who call themselves Australians to subscribe to them. Loyalty, democracy, tolerance, the rule of law: values worth promoting, values worth defending. The values of Australia and its citizens.

I'm almost tempted to emigrate to Australia just to be able to vote for this guy.

Liberal Theology

Janet Howe Gaines specializes in the Bible as literature in the Department of English at the University of New Mexico, and teaches Hebrew. Her account of the story of Jezebel as told in the Bible can be found here.

How bad was Jezebel? The Deuteronomist uses every possible argument to make the case against her. When Ahab dies, the Deuteronomist is determined to show that 'there never was anyone like Ahab, who committed himself to doing what was displeasing to the Lord, at the instigation of his wife Jezebel' (1 Kings 21:25). It is interesting that Ahab is not held responsible for his own actions.(8) He goes astray because of a wicked woman. Someone has to bear the writer's vituperation concerning Israel's apostasy, and Jezebel is chosen for the job.

It would almost be humorous if it wasn't so sad. Ms Howe Gaines seems to think that the "Deuteronomist" has an axe to grind regarding Jezebel and apparently misses the point that the "Deuteronomist" was inspired by God and communicated what God would have us to know. While the "Deuteronomist" may be the "writer", it is God who is the author.

This is another example of how liberal theology questions, criticizes, and distorts the Word of God because it offends one's sensibilities. At the link above Ms Howe Gaines attempts to portray Jezebel in a different light. Oh, if it were so but the reality is that God, through Elijah proclaimed she would be eaten by dogs and little would be left of her because of her actions.

It may be that Ms Howe Gains might simply be a frustrated, liberated, feminist desperately trying to posit another perspective of Jesebel in an effort to rewrite history or you may have other reasons to question my position, but before you reach a conclusion, I'd suggest you consider the wisdom of E.W. Bullinger's work regarding those who undertake "higher criticism" in his Numbers in Scripture where he says this:

Heb 4:12
kptikos- (kritikos) " (critic)"

This is the origin of our word "critic." The Greek word is kritikos and "critic" is merely the English spelling of the Greek word, which is transliterated. It means able to judge or skilled in judging; and then , simple a judge, but always with the idea of his ability to judge. kptikos appears only in Hebrews iv. 12, where it is translated " a discerner," Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The whole passage relates both to the written Word, which is a sword ( Eph.vi.17 ): and to the living Word ( Christ), who has a sword.

The structure of the two verses distinguishes between God and his word:-

A 12. God it is whose Word is so wonderful.

B 12. What his word IS ( Living, powerful and a harp sword).

C 12. What his word DOES ( piercing and dividing asunder, etc,).

B 12. What his word IS ( a skilled judge).

A 13. God who is omniscient.

[My note: The above is what is called a structure. It is an outline of sorts that may take different forms. The entire Bible can be mapped as a structure with smaller structures being found within the larger ones. The topic makes for a fascinating study and often is quite useful in determining the context and meaning of a passage.]

Here we have in A and A, God the omniscient one; and in B, C and B we have his word. And we learn that the Word of God is a judge now, so wonderful that it distinguished between the thoughts and the intentions of the heart and judges them. The Master Himself bares witness that the same Word will be our judge there after---John xii.48, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

What a solemn truth, And how much more solemn, when man now dares to take this one word "critic" or " Judge," Which God has thus, by His only once using it, appropriated to His Word, and applied it to himself, And what is it that man is going to judge? Why the every word of God! thus making himself the judge of that Word which is to judge him! If the word kritikos were of frequent occurrence, and used of various things or persons, man might perhaps be led to look on himself as a judge of some one of them. But God has used it only once, and He has thus confined it to one thing--- His Word. Therefore it is a daring presumption for man to transfer the word to himself. Not only does man do this, but he calls his work " higher Criticism."

Now there is a criticism which is lawful, because it judges not God's Word, but man's work as to the manuscripts; this is called Textual Criticism , which is quite different thing. But this " Higher criticism, is nothing but human reasoning; It is nothing more than the imagination of man's heart---those very thoughts and intentions which the Word its self judges!

What confusion! What perversion! and what folly! for the further man's criticsm departs from the domain of evidence and enters on the sphere of reason, the " higher" he calls it!

That is to say, the less like a skilled judge he acts, the higher he exalts his judgement! Poor man! Oh that you would submit yourself to this Word For it must either judge you now in this day of grace, and give you conviction of sin; or it will be your judge in the last day, when every mouth will be stopped, and you will be " speechless" and " without "excuse."

God has given us a message through this account of Jesebel and it is sad that it can be so difficult for some people to accept it. Perhaps Ms Howe Gaines will explain her rationale to God when she meets him. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31) and I suspect people who play fast and loose with the Scriptures, much to their dismay, will come to that realization.

Thought For Today

From E.W. Bullinger's Numbers in Scripture

Where there are more wills than one, there can be no peace, no rest. There must necessarily be conflict and confusion. This is the secret of all disturbance in families, parties, and nations.

We sometimes hear of a "Dual Control," but it is a fiction. It exists only in words, not in reality! This is the secret of rest for the heart now-"One will." As long as there are two wills there can be no peace. As long as our will is not subject to God's will, we cannot know what rest is.

This is where the Lord Jesus, as man, found rest in the midst of His rejection. In Matthew 11, John the Baptist doubts, vv. 2, 3; the people of that generation reject Him, vv. 16-19; the cities which saw His mightiest works do not believe, vv. 20-24. Then we read in the next verses (25,26), "AT THAT TIME Jesus answered and said, I THANK THEE, O FATHER, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes, EVEN SO FATHER; for so it seemed good in Thy sight." And then turning to his weary servants, the subjects of similar trials and disappointments, He says, "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."

In other words, rest is to be found only in subjection to the Father's will. This is the secret of present rest for our souls. This is the secret of Millennial peace and blessing for the earth.

How simple! and yet what strangers we are to this rest! How the Lord's servants are rushing hither and thither to find this great blessing, and yet do not enter into it! Why is this? It is because we do not believe that His will is better than our own? If we were occupied with the Lord instead of with ourselves, with the Blesser instead of with our "blessing," we should soon have such a sense of His grace and glory and power as would convince us that His will is better than ours; and then, instead of being busy with ourselves and enquiring how we are to give up our will, we should see that His is so good that we really loathe our own, and desire only His.

This blessing is not gained by any "act of surrender" or "act of faith," but our own will simply vanishes in the contemplation of his will as we see it to be all-gracious and all-good.

Man's modern methods all begin at the wrong end. They begin with ourselves, they occupy us with ourselves, and hence the failure. The Divine method puts "God First," and thus the end is assured.

It is when our hearts are so before God and so with God, that we learn the wondrous wisdom of His way, and the perfection, sweetness, and blessedness of His will. We yearn to possess it, we long for it, and desire to come into its joy; and our own will vanishes without an effort, and without our knowing it, until we discover afterwards what has happened by a happy experience.

In Millennial days this will be the blessing of the whole earth. For in that day there shall be one King, one will, "one Lord, and His name one."

What a spiritual giant.

The Dems' '08 Nominee

Who's Hillary's competition for the Democratic nomination in '08? Dick Morris says it's going to be Al Gore:

Gore has three things going for him: A perception that he was robbed of the White House and Hillary's possible stubbornness in continuing to back the war. The third thing? The weather. As the evidence of global climate change impresses everyone who doesn't work at the White House, Gore looks more and more like a man whose time may have come.

We don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The Murder of Ilan Hamili

Ilan Halimi was buried Thursday in France. Here's what happened:

Halimi was found dying, covered with burns and cuts, on Monday February 13. He had been kidnapped three weeks earlier, after a Muslim gang sent a blonde to seduce him. Halimi had agreed to meet with her after meeting in a chat room. Immediately after his abduction his mother went to the police, saying he was kidnapped by anti-Semites. Sources in the community said three Jewish youngsters had managed to escape similar abdications in recent months.

The police told Halimi's mother, Ruth, to stop all telephone connection with the kidnappers, as a way of forcing them to use electronic mail, which was traceable. The police did not know that during the five days in which the kidnappers tried in vain to contact Halimi's family, Halimi suffered terrible torture. One of the kidnappers said, "We put our cigarettes out on him because he was a Jew."

A few days after Halimi was found, the Paris public prosecutor, Jean-Claude Marin, told the media that the murder was a criminal event, and "no element of the current investigation could link this murder to an anti-Semitic declaration or action."

The reports about Halimi in France did not mention that he was Jewish. Halimi's family was livid. His mother accused the authorities of ignoring the anti-Semitic factor. "Had Ilan not been Jewish, he would not have been murdered," she said. She was widely quoted in the French media, and the authorities began to retreat.

On Tuesday French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said that "the murder had anti-Semitic motives." "They kidnapped and murdered him because he was Jewish - in their words, the Jews have money," he said.

This coming Sunday a huge procession in his memory is scheduled to take place in Paris. Jewish organizations, French political parties and anti-violence groups are to join in the demonstration.

It seems that it is human nature to enter a state of denial about serious threats to one's safety and that of one's family. Even as the hyenas circle the herd the gazelle graze nervously in hopes that the killers will pass them by.

Caroline Glick finds this phenomenon rampant in the governments of both France and Israel and is deeply disturbed by it. The civilized world is being challenged by Islamism to defend itself, and in too many quarters the response is to cower and to pretend there is no threat.

This timidity only emboldens those who are even now circling their psychologically weakened prey, darting in to take a nip, wearing it down, draining away its will to live. When the hyenas sense that the West has lost its will to fight for its civilization they will surge upon it, rip it to pieces, and gorge themselves on its remains.

The murder of this young Jewish man at the hands of French Muslim kidnappers is not just a horrific atrocity, it is a synecdoche for the future the Muslim world envisions for the West. Ilan Halimi and others, like Theo Van Gogh, are just the first drops of the approaching storm.

Strange Bedfellows

This news strikes us as a little odd (subscription may be required). The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest organization of scientists:

...appealed for the help of mainstream religion in its quest [to quash Intelligent Design], arguing that religion and science were not incompatible. Many religious leaders had stated they saw no conflict between evolution and religion, noted the AAAS. "We and the overwhelming majority of scientists share this view."

And there's this:

Eugenie Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education, told a weekend news conference it was time for the faith community to "step up to the plate," The Times of London reported. She said the idea one is either a Christian creationist or an atheist is believed by many people.

If we're reading this correctly the scientific community, or at least the portion of it committed to a Darwinian view of life, is trying to enlist churches and religious organizations in an effort to persuade their members that when Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett et al. declare that evolution is absolutely incompatible with religious belief they don't know what they're talking about. Indeed, The AAAS and Ms Scott seem to think that if religious folk would simply understand that Dawkins and Dennett speak only for most biologists, not all of them, and if the religious leadership would just get on board with the Darwinians, the dim-witted masses would eventually be confused enough to go along.

Why do the AAAS and the NCSE feel the need to do this, anyway? Aren't the arguments that the scientists themselves muster in favor of materialistic evolution persuasive enough? Are they tacitly admitting that they're losing ground, or failing to gain it, and, in desperation, they must seek to make allies of the very organizations that they in fact regard as their foes?

Whatever the case, we can be sure that if Eugenie Scott and her colleagues thought for one moment that they were sweeping the field there would be no appeals to the "faith community" to do anything except get out of their way.