All Religions Aren't the Same

There's been much in the news in the last couple of years that causes us to take a doubtful view of the merits of Islam. Here's a good reason to be likewise repelled by Hinduism:

Her parents told her the devadasi marriage ceremony was just a religious ritual, but she quickly learned otherwise. Six months after the "wedding," Ningamma was back in the temple, serving the first of countless men ... and ultimately contracting HIV.

Today, she has much in common with the other women in the room. They are all former devadasi, all HIV-positive, all serving World Vision as peer counselors to current and former temple prostitutes. And they all have a common purpose: to end a tragic Hindu tradition that began centuries ago.

Originally, devadasi were celibate dancing girls used in temple ceremonies. They entertained members of the ruling class. But sometime around the 6th Century, the practice of "dedicating" girls to Hindu gods became prevalent.

What was once a high-caste and socially honorable responsibility eventually degenerated into another variant of the world's oldest profession. Despite being outlawed, the practice of ritualized prostitution continues, though to escape detection the "dedications" or "weddings" often occur in the middle of the night or in private homes. Humanitarian organizations estimate as many as 5,000 Indian girls become devadasi each year.

Ningamma relates that during her life as a devadasi it was impossible to say "no" to any man. "My parents told me, 'If you stop, god will punish you,'" she says.

But even without such pressure it can be hard to persuade devadasi to seek alternate employment. Many make as much as 5000 rupees (about $120) for a day's work, which easily trumps the few dollars they could make as a seamstress.

So what gives Ningamma and the other former devadasi the strength or motivation to serve as peer counselors? "We've learned lessons and we want to pass on what we have learned," she says, looking around the room as other women nod in agreement. "Why should girls be sacrificed and traumatized?"

When atheistic communists commit atrocities they're acting consistently with their belief that there is no right or wrong except insofar as the act promotes the revolution. When Muslims commit atrocities they're acting consistently with their belief that Allah wants them to butcher infidels. When Hindus commit atrocities they are acting consistently with their belief that the gods desire the service of young women.

When Christians commit atrocities they're violating everything their religion and their Lord teaches about love, mercy, and justice.

Taliban "Offensive"

Counterterrorism Blog does the MSM's job for it and puts the recent Taliban action in Afghanistan into some perspective:

The news reports of a major Taliban offensive in southeastern Afghanistan are inaccurate, as Coalition offensives and Taliban attacks have been lumped together to give the impression of a coordinated Taliban assault in multiple provinces. A reading of the various reports indicates that while the Taliban has launched a major strike on a police station and government center in Helmand province and a small scale attack on a police patrol in Ghazni, as well as two suicide attacks against U.S. contractors in Herat and an Afghan army base in Ghazni, the fighting in Kandahar was initiated by Afghan and Coalition security forces during planned operations. Over 100 have been reported killed during the fighting, with 87 being Taliban. Well over half of those killed were killed during the Coalition offensives in Kandahar.

There were two separate major engagements in Kandahar province, and both were initiated by the Coalition. Coalition forces conducted a raid and subsequent air strikes against a Taliban safe haven in the village of Azizi. As many as 27 Taliban are believed to have been killed during the operation. A joint Canadian and Afghan security force conducted a sweep in the Panjwai district of Kandahar, and killed 18 Taliban and captured 26 in the process. One Canadian officer was killed and three Afghan police were wounded during the operation.

The fighting in Musa Qala in Helmand province is a bonafide major Taliban attack. The Associated Press reports an "estimated 300-400 militants with assault rifles and machine guns attacked a police and government headquarters" in Musa Qala. The Afghan police provided reinforcements to the beleaguered police station, fought off the Taliban force, reestablished control over the region, and killed 40 Taliban and took thirteen casualties of their own. Two police patrols were ambushed in Ghazni, and resulted in the death of two policemen. There is no evidence the attacks were coordinated. And they certainly weren't coordinated to occur in conjunction with Coalition operations.

During the fighting of the past few days, the Coalition may have scored a major victory. The BBC's Alastair Leithead reports Mullah Dadullah, the Taliban's most senior commander, has been captured, however the military has yet to confirm this report. The Jamestown Foundation describes Mullah Dadullah as "The Military Mastermind of the Taliban Insurgency" as well as "a member of the 10-man leading council of Taliban insurgents." Dadullah reportedly escaped the U.S. and Northern Alliance onslaught of the Taliban regime in the winter of 2002 and surfaced in South Waziristan, Pakistan, where he raised funds and organized the Taliban insurgency. Dadullah would be a treasure trove of information on the Taliban's operations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Qari Naeem, the Taliban commander of Ghazni province, was also killed.

The Taliban were expected to launch some sort of initiative this spring, but so far it seems that they lack the resources to be more than just an irritant to the Karzai government.

Post-Modern Prophet

Pat Robertson sounds more like a charlatan everytime we read about him. He professes to be hearing God speak to him about the future but he's not sure he's actually hearing God clearly. How convenient:

In another in a series of notable pronouncements, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says God told him storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America's coastline this year. Robertson has made the predictions at least four times in the past two weeks on his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded.

Robertson said the revelations about this year's weather came to him during his annual personal prayer retreat in January. "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. On Wednesday, he added, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest."

Perhaps God needs to enunciate more clearly or speak more loudly, Pat's hearing no longer being what it once was. Or perhaps Pat's just blowing smoke in the faces of the gullible. After all, did the Old Testament prophets preface their anathemas with "If I heard God right"? Did they use such namby-pamby constructions as bad things "may well" happen? If God is really speaking to Pat why is God speaking so ambiguously? Is God himself unsure of what he thinks is going to occur?

It strikes me as highly unlikely that God talks to Pat Robertson, or anyone else for that matter, but it's just plain impossible to imagine that, if God does talk to someone, he chooses to engage in idle chatter.

Storms on American coasts are inevitable. Why would God bother to tell Pat that they're going to happen? Why would Pat bother to tell us that they're going to happen? A Northwestern tsunami also has a certain probability. Of course one "may well" happen. Everybody already knows that. If Robertson wants us to believe that God speaks to him he needs to stop equivocating and come right out with a definite prediction.

If Pat ever relates that God has told him that a tsunami will occur at a prescribed place, date, and time, then he will have my attention and then we'll be able to discern whether God really is talking to him. Until then it seems safe to say that, at best, Pat is a victim of a hyperactive imagination coupled to a spiritually pompous ego.

Ward Churchill: Fraud

FrontPage Mag has a post mortem of the recent findings in the case of Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado prof who came to national attention via a speech in which he compared 9/11 victims to nazis and who was subsequently investigated for professional malfeasance. The findings of the investigating committee are discussed at the link, but the short version is that he is guilty, inter alia, of plagiarism, falsification, and fabrication of research. The recommendation of one of the investigators is that he be fired. The others recommended a long suspension.

The most interesting part of the FrontPage article is the following:

Among the report's observations is this:

"Although many of his writings, including nearly all those discussed in this report, address historical and/or legal issues, he does not have formal training at the graduate level in those fields. Professors writing on the topics he addresses would typically have a Ph.D. in history or a law degree; Professor Churchill's graduate degree is an M.A. in Communications Theory."

This is obviously something that did not take a report to divulge. It was known by the entire Ethnic Studies department which hired him, voted him tenure, voted him a full professorship and then voted him its chairman. As one professor commented on InsideHighered.com:

"The wider implications of the Ward Churchill verdict are stunning. Given the egregious findings here by a distinguished panel of professors, the question is not merely Ward Churchill's writings alone. The question is: how was it that this charlatan was promoted three times, first to tenure and associate professor, then to full professor-and finally to CHAIR of the Department of Ethnic Studies at Colorado?

"The first two promotions could ONLY have happened via the receipt of approval letters from prominent people in the Ethnic Studies field. This process must have been carried out twice, first for tenure then for full professor, and must have involved at least six and probably as many as ten prominent professors of Ethnic Studies. Yet they noticed no problems. What does that say about them as scholars? What does it say about Ethnic Studies as a valid intellectual field? In fact, the Report appears to indicate (p. 5) that Ethnic Studies is not held to the same scholarly standards as other, more traditional fields of intellectual endeavor in the humanities and social sciences. I cannot figure out whether the Report also means to imply that Ethnic Studies SHOULD not be held to those same standards. I hope that is not what the authors of the Report mean.

"Furthermore, - but this would be the most difficult thing to do - those administrators at Colorado who approved Ward Churchill's tenure and associate professorship, who then approved Ward Churchill's promotion to full professor, and who then and finally approved Ward Churchill's elevation to Departmental Chair all deserved to be disciplined. THEY are as culpable as the politically corrupt or incompetent scholars who approved Churchill's career all along the line via the writing of positive external-review letters at the time of his promotions. But these administrators will be the most protected by the system. I know someone who, when interviewing for a job at Colorado in 1997, was told that Churchill was a fraud, and that everyone knew it. The university, according to the Report, was in receipt of major complaints against Churchill as early as 1996.

"So, who DIDN'T know Churchill was a fraud? Yet he was promoted to full professor AFTER 1997, and then eventually to Chair of his Department. One needs to investigate why. Were they physically afraid of him? Were they afraid of the criticism they would receive from his supporters if they objected? Were they so supportive (or afraid) of his politics that this trumped any doubts about his worth as a scholar?"

Since the sixties most colleges and universities have instituted what might be called boutique departments. Their discipline is neither rigorous nor well-defined and caters to left-wing professors and students who wish to have their presuppositions about the wickedness of the straight Western white man (SWWM) confirmed. Gender studies, African-American studies, Ethnic studies, Queer studies, etc. are all pretty much a waste of time, unless the objective is to fuel hostility and divisiveness, but the administrations of the colleges offer them as a way to keep the militant lefties pacified. They are for many radicalized students what the basket-weaving courses used to be for the school's athletes.

Churchill is a product of a trend in which scholarship doesn't matter nearly as much as ideological correctness. Churchill could pillory the SWWM with a panache and afflatus that appealed to his callow students, and that was the only qualification he needed to gain the favor of his peers and to advance up the ladder.

PushMe-PullYou in the Senate

The Senate comes across in this news item like the PushMe-PullYou in the old Dr. Doolittle movie. The PushMe-PullYou was a horse-like animal whose rear half was just like its front half. Thus, if both halves were trying to move forward at the same time they cancelled each other out:

The Senate agreed to give millions of illegal immigrants a shot at U.S. citizenship and backed construction of 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday, but prospects for legislation clearing Congress were clouded by a withering attack against President Bush by a prominent House Republican.

The vote to build what supporters called a "real fence" _ as distinct from the virtual fence already incorporated in the legislation _ was 83-16. The fence would be built in areas "most often used by smugglers and illegal aliens," as determined by federal officials. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., estimated the cost at roughly $3.2 million per mile, more than $900 million for 300 miles.

The provision includes a call for construction of 500 miles of vehicle barriers, adding to a system currently in place. It marked the first significant victory for conservatives eager to leave their stamp on a measure that looks increasingly like it is headed toward Senate passage.

Construction would send "a signal that open-border days are over. ... Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors," Sessions said. He said border areas where barriers are in place have experienced economic improvement and reduced crime.

The House legislation...would make all illegal aliens subject to prosecution as felons and [it] calls for construction of a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border - more than twice as long as the barrier the Senate backed during the day.

Like the PushMe-PullYou the Senate is moving in the right direction, though not far enough, by approving some 370 miles of fence. But they're moving in the wrong direction by putting illegal immigrants on a track toward citizenship. This is a slap at all who have gone through the process of becoming citizens the right way.

The House has a better fence proposal but, though we are not unsympathetic with the reasoning behind it, it's probably not practical to insist upon prosecuting and deporting all illegals. In our view, current illegals should be neither sought out for prosecution nor granted citizenship. Legal sanctions should instead be directed at the employers who hire illegals. As jobs dry up and citizenship is not an option the illegals will gradually diminish in number.

Sullivan's Complaint

Andrew Sullivan writes:

The absolute demands of fundamentalist faith make the West's tradition of civil compromise impossible; and they constantly push the boundaries of what is acceptable to God, as religious purists outdo each other in proving their righteousness - whether it be keeping comatose patients alive for decades or defining a zygote as a full human person. Hence our politics has degenerated into a "culture war." Wars are what happens when politics become impossible. And that is the corrosive effect of Christianism; and why it must be resisted - for the sake of American discourse and for the sake of a vibrant, humble apolitical Christianity.

In other words you can believe whatever you want but just don't base your politics on it. I wonder if Andrew would call Martin Luther King a Christianist, or William Wilberforce. I wonder if he'd castigate Jim Wallis at Sojourners for preaching that one's inner faith needs to bear outward fruit in the politics we adopt. I wonder if he condemns Jesse Jackson for basing his politics on his Christian convictions. Probably not. These Christians all support(ed) causes with which Sullivan agrees so he never really gets around to criticizing them.

It's the Christians who endorse policies with which he doesn't agree that win his opprobrium and merit the epithet Christianist. He recognizes that it is politically concerned Christians who are the greatest impediment to the homosexual agenda, of which he is a prominent advocate, and therefore the easiest way to get that agenda enacted is to delegitimize the most formidable opposition by burdening it with a silly and awkward pejorative.

Anyway, Andrew should check his history. The culture war has come about not because Christians have tried to impose laws and standards that never before existed but because secularists have tried to strip society of the laws and standards which had governed our social life for decades, or even centuries, and in the case of marriage, millenia.

The culture war exists because people like Sullivan seek to exclude anyone whose political opinions are based upon their religious beliefs from the public square. It is that attempt to win the public debate by discrediting the basis for one's opponents' opinions that generates the social and political ill-will that Sullivan laments.

UPDATE: Joe Carter reprises Sullivan's argument in Time magazine (which was titled My Problem With Christianism) with this piece titled My Problem With Sullivanism. It's great fun.

Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom

The People's Republic of China is certainly no place for people to live, at least not if they yearn for basic human rights and freedoms:

A Chinese Internet writer was jailed for 12 years on Tuesday for "subversion of state power" after backing a movement by exiled dissidents to hold free elections, his lawyer said.

Yang Tianshui, 45, who has been in custody since last December, did not plan to appeal, a protest against a trial he felt was illegal, his lawyer, Li Jianqiang, said. Yang is one of several Internet writers and journalists being tried this month, amid what analysts say is a tightening of controls on media and freedom of expression.

Yang was charged after posting essays on the Internet in support of the "Velvet Action of China", a movement named for the "Velvet Revolution" that peacefully overthrew communist rule in the former Czechoslovakia.

He previously served 10 years on "counter-revolution" charges for condemning the military crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators on Tiananmen Square, the Committee to Protect Journalists said. He was released in 2000.

The tough sentence comes a day after the lawyer for New York Times researcher Zhao Yan said the case against him had been revived, dashing hopes for his imminent release. He has been held since September 2004.

Of course, the People's Republic is a communist state, and despite the gushings of apologists like Noam Chomsky and others on the left, communists take a very attenuated view of things like human dignity and individual liberty. Communist political philosophy expresses little concern for such trifles. They do make up for the lack, though, in their fondness for cruelty.

The Clash of Civilizations

Dennis Prager disabuses anyone who believes that the war on terror is going to be like a slightly longer version of the invasion of Grenada. His column is important reading for anyone interested in the Islamic mindset, but it's absolutely crucial for anyone who thinks that the GWOT should be handled as if it were a police matter. The heart of his piece is this:

Nevertheless, one can say that from its inception, Islam has been imperialist. My working definition of imperialism is that of University of London professor Efraim Karsh, whose recent book, "Islamic Imperialism" (Yale University Press), is one of the few indispensable books on Islam.

Karsh defines imperialism as "conquering foreign lands and subjugating their populations." Whenever possible, Muslims from the time of Muhammad have done that. Now, the Church also subjugated peoples to Christianity, and Europe suffered from prolonged religious wars. But as Karsh notes, from its inception, Christianity acknowledged a separation of the religious and the political, rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

No such division was allowed for in Islam. That is why the nation-state developed in the Christian world but not in the Muslim world. The Muslim states of the Middle East, for example, are creations of Western (secular) imperialism or pre-date Islam (Egypt, for example); and they are foreign concepts to most Middle Eastern Muslims, who recognize themselves much more as part of the ummah, the Muslim community, than as Iraqis, Jordanians, Syrians, etc.

Nor is Islamic imperialism only a function of Muslim behavior rather than Muslim theology. Karsh opens his book citing the statements of four Muslim figures.

The Prophet Muhammad in his farewell address: "I was ordered to fight all men until they say, 'There is no god but Allah.'"

Saladin (great 12th-century founder of the Ayyubid dynasty that included Ayyubid Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and much of present-day Saudi Arabia): "I shall cross this sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah."

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (father of the Islamic revolution in Iran): "We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world."

Osama bin Laden in November 2001: "I was ordered to fight the people until they say 'there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad.'"

No one should have a problem with Muslims wanting the whole world Muslim. After all, Christians would like the whole world to come to Christ. What should matter to all people is the answer to one question: What are you prepared to do to bring the world to your religion? For virtually every living Christian, the answer is through modeling and verbal persuasion (and Jews never believed the world needs to be Jewish).

But by the most conservative estimates, 10 percent of Muslims are in sympathy with the bin Laden way. That means at least 100 million people are prepared to murder (and apparently torture) in Allah's name. And given the history of Islamic imperialism and its roots in Muslim theology, hundreds of millions more are probably fellow travelers. Hence the almost unanimous Muslim governments' support for the genocidal Islamic regime in Sudan.

Millions of Muslims are determined to force us and our children to choose between the Koran and the sword. Those who deny we're in a war in which our survival as a nation, a culture, and individual persons is at stake are deluding themselves.

Impulse Shopping

Evidently Iran is not much concerned with customer service:

Venezuela is considering selling its fleet of U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to another country, perhaps Iran, in response to a U.S. ban on arms sales to President Hugo Chavez's government, a military official said Tuesday.

Gen. Alberto Muller, a senior adviser to Chavez, told The Associated Press he had recommended to the defense minister that Venezuela consider selling the 21 jets to another country. Muller said he thought it was worthwhile to consider "the feasibility of a negotiation with Iran for the sale of those planes."

Even before the U.S. announced the ban on arms sales Monday, Washington had stopped selling Venezuela sensitive upgrades for the F- 16s.

Chavez has previously warned he could share the U.S. jets with Cuba if Washington does not supply parts for the planes. He also has said he may look into buying fighter jets from Russia or China instead.

We can understand why Chavez wants to unload them since they're useless without spare parts, but we can't figure out why Iran, without access to parts, would want to buy them.

Besides, what does Iran expect to use them for? Oil exploration? Surely, the Iranians don't think those planes would be in any way a counter to American air power. The Iranian pilots who fly those F-16s against American fighters, assuming they'd even be able to get the planes off the ground, would be either very brave or very stupid.

There's Lots Going Right in Iraq

Bill Crawford has his latest summary of good news from Iraq up at National Review Online. The military stuff is especially interesting but even more important is the list of highlights from the Brooking's Institute study that he closes his report with:

1. Per Capita GDP (USD) for 2005 is forecast to increase from the previous year to $1,051. In 2002 it was $802.

2. Increases in GDP for the next five years: 16.8, 13.6, 12.5, 7.8, and 7.2.

3. Actionable tips from Iraqis have increased every month this year. In January, 4,025 tips were received; February, 4,235; and March, 4,578.

4. On an index of political freedom for countries in the Middle East, Iraq now ranks fourth, just below Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

5. Crude oil production reached 2.14 million barrels a day (MBD) in April of this year. It had dropped to 0.3 MBD in May of 2003.

6. Revenues from oil export have only slightly increased from prewar levels of $0.2 billion, to $0.62 billion in April.

7. Electrical output is almost at the pre-war level of 3,958 megawatts. April's production was 3,600 megawatts. In May of 2003, production was only 500 megawatts. The goal is to reach 6,000 megawatts, and was originally expected to be met in 2004.

8. The unemployment rate in June of 2003 was 50-60 percent, and in April of this year it had dropped to 25-40 percent.

9. The number of U.S. military wounded has declined significantly from a high of 1,397 in November 2004 to 430 in April of this year.

10. Iraqi military casualties were 201 in April of 2006, after peaking at 304 in July of 2005.

11. As of December 2005, countries other than the U.S., plus the World Bank and IMF, have pledged almost $14 billion in reconstruction aid to Iraq.

12. Significant progress has also been made towards the rule of law. In May 2003 there were no trained judges, but as of October 2005 there were 351.

13. As of January 2006, 64 percent of Iraqis polled said that the country was headed in the right direction.

14. Also as of January 2006, 77 percent said that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.

15. In May of 2003, Iraqi security forces were estimated at between 7,000-9,000. They numbered 250,500 in March of this year.

16. The breakdown of foreign terrorists by country of origin is interesting. The largest number come from Algeria, at 20 percent. The next two countries are Syria and Yemen, at 18 percent and 17 percent, respectively.

17. The number of foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq was estimated at between 300 and 500 in January 2004. That number increased in April of this year, to between 700 and 2,000.

18. From May 2003 and April 2006, between 1,000 and 3,000 anti-Iraqi forces have been killed each month.

You won't hear any of that on the evening news, and one wonders why that is. It seems as if the institutional media just can't bring themselves to report anything positive about Iraq for fear that Bush will get the credit, the Republicans will do well in November, and the temptation to use force in Iran will be reinforced. Of course, their job is to report the news and to let us decide what it means, but they don't see it that way. They evidently see their role as shaping public opinion to conform to the Democratic party's ideology. It's one reason why so few people trust them as a reliable source of news anymore.

Sam Harris' Trilemma

Sam Harris, atheist and author of The End of Faith, is a very bright guy, but he seems to have allowed himself to wander into a dilemma, or more correctly, a trilemma. How he does this is explained below. Meanwhile, BeliefNet's Laura Sheahen has an interview with him in which he scores some direct hits against Islam, raises several tough questions for Christians, and, as we suggested, also reveals some deep shortcomings in his atheism.

In the interview he asserts that if religion were to disappear we'd be a step closer to universal harmony:

L.S. : You're saying we should be part of the human race, not part of any particular religious or national group?

S.H. : Yeah. It is still fashionable to believe that how you organize yourself religiously in this life may matter for eternity. Unless we can erode the prestige of that kind of thinking, we're not going to be able to undermine these divisions in our world.

This reminds me of Francis Fukuyama's claim that the collapse of communism had brought us to the "end of history". Fukuyama didn't foresee, apparently, the rise of global Islam, nor did he consider that it's human nature to order the world along the lines of us vs. them. If no one held to religious beliefs walls between people would be erected with the bricks of political ideology, or race, or nationalism, but there would still be walls and there would still be group conflict.

Harris urges us to be rational, to base our judgments and beliefs on evidence, and to get over our archaic belief in God and an afterlife. These beliefs, he argues, are the source of many of our conflicts and problems, but what is the evidence that man's problems stem mainly from belief in God? After all, it wasn't theism that made the twentieth century the bloodiest in history. It was state atheism, the pinnacle of the rational approach to human affairs that Harris touts.

Harris criticizes Islam for its violence and fundamentalist Christianity for its irrationality, but his real target is belief in God. Yet he cannot really argue against theism, so he tries to get at it by attacking the more outlandish expressions of that belief. He says, for instance, that:

"We need to lift the taboos that currently prevent us from criticizing religious irrationality."

What taboos are these? Where in the Western world are there any restrictions placed upon those who wish to criticize Christianity? He's correct that Islamic countries have a real problem with open criticism, but that's a complaint against Islam, not against religion in general, and certainly not against belief in God.

L.S. : What is the alternative? If there's no God who orders things, some people would say there's chaos, it's all random, their life is meaningless. There really is despair out there--especially about evolution.

S.H. : You don't have to believe in God to have the most extraordinary, mystical experience. Personally, I've spent two years on meditation retreats just meditating in silence for 12-18 hours a day.

You can try to be a mystic, like Meister Eckhart in the Christian tradition, without believing Jesus was born of a virgin. You can realize the value of community and compassion and love of your neighbor without ever presupposing anything on insufficient evidence.

Well, yes, but what is the evidence that valuing community and loving one's neighbor are morally right? Harris accepts these principles as obligatory, but where do they come from? Not the Bible, he asserts:

S.H. : There are many ironies here. The [sacred texts] themselves are very poor guides to morality. The only way you find goodness in good books is because you recognize it. They're based on your own ethical intuitions. In the New Testament, Jesus is talking about the Golden Rule--a great, wise, compassionate distillation of ethics. You're doing that based on your intuition.

Harris is now digging himself into the trilemma we mentioned earlier. We know, he insists, that it is right to love our neighbor through intuition, but what if someone has nastier intuitions than does Sam Harris? Why are Harris' intuitions right and Saddam Hussein's intuitions, for example, wrong? How do we judge between them except by holding both sets of intuitions up to a higher standard for comparison?

Yet for Harris there is no higher standard, so all we're left with is a social consensus - the intuitions of the majority are to be imposed upon the rest of us. Whatever the majority decides to be right, is right. This has bizarre consequences. It means, for example, that if a man is in the minority on some matter then he is ab defino wrong. He cannot be right because right is whatever the majority intuits.

Hopefully, also, you recognize that stoning someone to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night, or beating your child with a rod, as it recommends in Proverbs, and which millions of Christians do in our country, that's not a good thing. You know that based on your own intuitions and the evolving human conversation about what is ethical and most conducive to human happiness.

And if one doesn't recognize this, as many Muslims obviously don't, what reason can Harris give us for concluding that they are wrong? All he can say is that he doesn't like this sort of behavior. He can't say it's wrong in any meaningful sense. Indeed, he can't say that anything at all is wrong.

Moreover, as we noted above, if he were in the minority on this issue then he would have to accept that he is the one who is in error, not the Muslims.

We can agree that famine in Africa is intolerable to us for perfectly compassionate and rational and modern reasons that have nothing to do with [religious] beliefs. We just have to believe that it is unethical that people are starving to death while we are throwing out half of our meals.

Harris simply assumes that people will agree with him that it's wrong to let people starve, and most people, without thinking about it much, would agree with him, but they do so because they've inherited the moral capital of Christianity. It's this moral capital that has informed their intuitions and which they draw upon to make their judgments.

Nevertheless, if there is no transcendent moral authority, no God, then there simply is no right or wrong and Harris' assumption that there is, is not only an irrational leap of faith, but it is quite simply incorrect. There is no reason whatsoever why it would be morally wrong for me to waste all the food I please, even if the starving children were crouched at my table. It might be repugnant to Mr. Harris' intuitions, but that hardly makes it wrong.

Now we see the trilemma Mr. Harris and other non-theists must confront. If they're going to enjoin us to abandon the irrationality of religion and embrace the "rational" life they exemplify, then they should themselves forego the irrationality of moral judgment in a godless world and embrace moral nihilism. That is the logical endpoint of their atheism.

If, on the other hand, they wish to hold onto moral categories and language then they need to acknowledge that either they're guilty of a gross inconsistency by accepting the existence of right and wrong by blind faith, or they should grant that their conviction that right and wrong do in fact exist is prima facie evidence for the existence of a transcendent moral lawgiver.

In short, their atheism leads to either 1) moral nihilism, or 2) an irrational acceptance of an arbitrary, purely subjective moral standard, or 3) a recognition that there is indeed evidence that the God of theism exists. As far as I can see there are no other options available to him. It's a tough spot to be in, to be sure, but that's where atheism takes those who accept it.

Pin the Tail on the Honky

In a column titled "Pin the Tail on the Honky" Mike Adams, professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington) lists the top ten most bizarre (and moronic) claims that he's heard uttered by faculty and students. Here's his list:

10. "911 was a conspiracy planned between the Bush administration and the Jews. They wanted an excuse to attack Arabs and the ignorant public bought into it." (from a now-deceased college professor).

9. "I don't want any teacher who supports George W. Bush. If Bush is elected he's planning - along with the rest of the Republicans - to bring back slavery. I don't want to work picking cotton in the cotton fields like my ancestors." (college student).

8. "It is a known fact that the Reagan administration invented crack to destroy the black community." (college professor).

7. "The Reagan administration hired Jewish doctors to develop the AIDS virus to destroy Africa." (college professor).

6. "The Mona Lisa was painted by an African artist and stolen from a museum in Ethiopia. Most of the great works of art are African in origin and stolen by white people. This is done to promote the myth of white cultural superiority." (graduate student).

5. "The voting machines in Florida were built by white supremacists. They may well be able to distinguish between black and white voters. Who knows what they are capable of making those machines do?" (college professor).

4. "Newt Gingrich's election as Speaker of the House, limiting affirmative action, limiting welfare, the Republican tax cuts, and the balanced budget are all part of the same idea. Everything the Republicans do or discuss is about racism. Everything is a well-orchestrated effort to keep the black man down." (college professor).

3. "The ABC news doesn't tell you. The CBS news doesn't tell you. The NBC news doesn't tell you. Even CNN doesn't tell you. Nobody tells the truth that almost all serial killers are white. The news outlets all work together to make folks think that all killers are black." (college professor and diversity director).

2. "The death penalty is a genocidal mechanism that seeks to control black people through extermination or, more importantly, the threat of extermination." (college professor).

1. "It is a proven fact that U.S. Coast Guard ships - on orders from President Bush - were seen crashing into the New Orleans levees during Hurricane Katrina. Bush did it to kill black people living in government housing projects." (college student).

It's a bit unnerving to think that these beliefs are held by supposedly well-educated people. It's also disconcerting to think that every one of them no doubt votes.

Hmmm. Who do you think they voted for in 2004?

Summer Reading

Looking to better understand the controversy between those who endorse materialist explanations of the cosmos and those, like the Intelligent Design people, who embrace more teleological views? If so, here are some recommendations for summer reading that might be helpful. Most of these books are accessible to the non-specialist who has a moderate interest in philosophy and/or science although parts of some of them may be a little difficult for some readers.

All of the books in the list reinforce the notion that our universe and life are imbued with purpose although not all of the authors are theists. Indeed, there are deists, agnostics, and, in at least one case, an atheist on the list. Even so, reading them leaves the impression that the cosmos and life must surely have been intentionally engineered.

The following four books provide a philosophical background or overview of the debate between materialist explanations of the universe and non-materialist explanations:

1. The Soul of Science: Nancy Pearcey

2. Total Truth: Nancy Pearcey

3. Science and Its Limits: Del Ratzsch

4. Battle of Beginnings: Del Ratzsch

These works focus on the fine-tuning of the universe:

5. Modern Physics and Ancient Faith: Stephen Barr

6. Rare Earth: Peter Ward and David Brownlee

This book addresses both the fine-tuning of the universe and the incredible engineering of living things:

7. Nature's Destiny: Michael Denton

Paul Davies discusses the difficulties associated with any purely mechanistic or materialistic explanation of the origin of life:

8. The Fifth Miracle: Paul Davies

The following three books are critical of the ability of standard Darwinian theory to explain the structure of living things:

9. Evolution a Theory in Crisis: Michael Denton

10. Icons of Evolution: Jonathon Wells

11. Darwin on Trial: Phillip Johnson

These books explicitly make the case for Intelligent Design:

12. Darwin's Black Box: Michael Behe

13. Intelligent Design: William Dembski

14. The Design Revolution: William Dembski

Any of these can be ordered from Hearts and Minds Bookstore by going here.

Dear Mahmoud

Christopher Hitchens lays out how George Bush should respond to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent 18 page diatribe here.

Task Force 145

Bill Roggio assumes that Task Force 145 has struck again near Ramadi:

Task Force 145, the mix of special operations forces assigned to hunt Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq leaderships and cells, appears to have struck again, this time in Julaybah, an area "identified as a terrorist safe haven" which is located about 8 miles east of Ramadi. Three terrorists were killed and four captured during the fight. The Multinational Forces - Iraq press release provides an overview of the engagement:

"Upon arrival... the Coalition troops began receiving rifle and machine gun fire. The terrorists then began to launch ineffective mortar fire from across a nearby river. Coalition Forces neutralized both the direct and indirect fire with small arms fire and close air support and simultaneously raided five structures, associated hide outs and vehicles. After killing three terrorists and detaining four others, the troops conducted a thorough search of the area. They found six affiliated vehicles, three of which were loaded with various weapons and explosives to include rifles, mortars and improvised explosive device material. The troops also uncovered numerous weapons caches with AK-47's, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds and IED material... Five safe houses, six cars, and all lethal material were destroyed on target."

Again, the tell-tale signs of a Task Force 145 operation are contained within the Multinational Forces - Iraq press release: vague details of the strike, an unidentified Coalition unit and unnamed air support, the targeting of an al-Qaeda cell, a suspected "wanted terrorist" on the target list (it is unknown if he was killed or captured during the raid), and the swift raids on multiple targets.

The raid in Julaybah is the latest in a series of TF-145 operations over the past month, which included Yusifayah, Balad, Baghdad, Samarra and Karbala. The targeting indicates al-Qaeda is concentrating in and around Baghdad, which squares with the recently seized al-Qaeda gameplan for the battle of Baghdad.These raids have netted the unedited Zarqawi tapes and internal al-Qaeda communications, as well as senior Ansar al-Islam commander and veteran jihadi Ali Wali, along with senior al-Qaeda commander Abu Aisha. Scores of al-Qaeda terrorists have been killed or captured over the past month.

The average American may not be aware of what TF-145 is, but I'll bet the average jihadi is. See also here

Darth Vader's Tax Returns

This is the man the left loathes with all their heart and soul:

Let Vice President Cheney unload a hail of buckshot - and it makes mainstream media headlines as a defining moment in his failed vice presidency.

Let him file his federal tax return and it is reported by CBS News that "Cheney tops Bush in the battle of the bucks."

Let him donate what was the largest amount of bucks in history to charity by any public servant, and you guessed it - nary a headline.

But then again it was a paltry $6.87 million, more than three-quarters of the reported income of the Cheneys. Read this again: The Cheneys gave $6.87 million to charity in 2005.

Note well: This was the largest charitable donation by a public servant in history! And who in the MSM uttered a peep about it? They couldn't utter a word, actually, because they are flummoxed by the generosity of the man they believe to be the incarnation of evil. It just doesn't fit their paradigm of Republicans in general and Cheney in particular, and they lack either the intellectual resources to comprehend their error or the honesty to admit it, or both.

To read how the media did handle this story, or rather, how they tried to hide it, go to the link.

Another Harriet Miers Moment

Michelle is completely unimpressed. Hugh is disappointed. Ed is lukewarm. John believes that Bush has blown his last chance to rescue his second term. They're shaking their heads at NRO's The Corner. One observer says we need Jack Bauer and we're getting Mr. Rogers.

I agree with all of them. The President clearly had a chance to lay out a credible plan to solve the problem of illegal immigration, and all he did was recommend a band aid for a hemorrhage. Troops are a short term fix and building more detention centers so that captured border-crossers don't have to be released in this country is insulting, as is offering illegals a pathway to citizenship. This was another Harriet Miers moment for the President, unfortunately.

Any solution that does not include a state of the art fence along the length of the border with Mexico is simply a waste of money and effort. We have in the past thought George Bush had the chance to be a historic president. Tonight the only people who will think that are illegal immigrants and those who aspire to be.

We look for the President's job approval numbers to continue bobbing up and down in the mid-thirties. They would go lower except, like scoring 200 on the SATs, they can't get any lower.

Blog War

A blogger war appears to be brewing with Andrew Sullivan on one side and Hugh Hewitt, most prominently, on the other. Sullivan has taken to using the pejorative "Christianist" a lot on his blog and has introduced the term into the cultural mainstream with an article in Time magazine. By "Christianist" Sullivan means someone who believes that one's politics should be informed by one's faith commitment. Since he differentiates between Christians and "Christianists", presumably Christians are those who know their place at the back of the political bus:

But [the "Christianist"] agenda, whatever else it is, cannot be described as mainstream Christianity. Its extremism, its enmeshment with partisan political power, its contempt for individual liberty, its certainty and arrogance and intolerance, demand that some other name be given to it.

So what is it that the "Christianists" oppose? Abortion on demand, gay marriage, giving the benefit of the doubt to life in the case of comatose people whose preferences are not known, but whose family wants the person to be kept alive, and so on.

This is not to deny that there are people out on the fringe who would support banning contraception and sexual behavior between consenting adults, and Sullivan is right to challenge them. What he is not right to do, though, is to suggest that people who hold to traditional Christian morality are extremist, intolerant, and arrogant, and this he does. In the process he manages to conflate in peoples' minds any Christian who seeks to exert influence in the public square with the nefarious "Christianists" who he believes seek to establish a totalitarian theocracy.

Hugh Hewitt, a "Christianist" himself perhaps, writes a response at World Magazine.

The Faith of a Darwinian

Bill Dembski directs us to an article in Physics Today in which the authors say this:

Molecular machines are the basis of life. DNA, a long molecule that encodes the blueprints to create an organism, may be life's information storage medium, but it needs a bevy of machines to read and translate that information into action. The cell's nanometer-scale machines are mostly protein molecules, although a few are made from RNA, and they are capable of surprisingly complex manipulations. They perform almost all the important active tasks in the cell: metabolism, reproduction, response to changes in the environment, and so forth. They are incredibly sophisticated, and they, not their manmade counterparts, represent the pinnacle of nanotechnology. Yet scientists have no general theory for their assembly or operation.

How much can one molecule do? Consider, for example, ATP (adenosine triphosphate) synthase. This macromolecular assembly, only about 10 nanometers on a side, is an essential part of the cellular factory that produces ATP, the universal energy currency of life. We will not get into the details of the biological role of ATP synthase in the cell, but consider merely what it is capable of doing in isolation: It is a rotary motor. In the presence of a proton gradient, this remarkable machine turns a spindle as it adds phosphate groups to molecules of adenosine diphosphate to produce ATP. And every day the cells in your body perform this phosphate-addition reaction to produce roughly your body weight in ATP molecules.

But that is not all: ATP synthase can run in reverse. It can consume ATP, and with each ATP molecule that is hydrolyzed, the central shaft of ATP synthase turns by 120 degrees, directly converting chemical to mechanical energy. That reverse operation was explicitly demonstrated through a series of elegant experiments in which a molecular propeller was attached to the shaft and then imaged with optical microscopy.The propeller rotated in the presence of ATP, with absolute thermodynamic efficiencies of up to 90%. Despite the tremendous strides made in nanotechnology, no device of similar functionality can yet be fabricated with inorganic materials. Furthermore, many questions remain about the basic principles by which molecular machines such as ATP synthase convert chemical energy to mechanical forces.

After going on at some length in this vein the authors observe, in a masterful piece of understatement, that:

It is surely one of the triumphs of evolution that Nature discovered how to make highly accurate machines....

Note the difficulty of describing biological machines and information without using terms that are redolent of purpose:

One of the key hallmarks of biological function is ordering in space and time, and at least two great classes of biological orchestration should serve as a call to action for physicists: the coordination of physical structures and processes and the orchestration of information.

The whole article is worth reading but one passage in particular struck us. The authors write that:

Understanding collective effects in the cell will require merging two philosophical viewpoints. The first is that life is like a computer program: An infrastructure of machines carries out arbitrary instructions that are encoded into DNA software. The second viewpoint is purely physical: Life arises from a mixing together of chemicals that follow basic physical principles to self-assemble into an organism. Presumably, the repertoire of available behaviors is more limited in the latter. The two viewpoints are complementary, not incompatible: Either one could best describe cell behavior, depending on the particular situation.

Life is like a computer program, they tell us. If this is a legitimate analogy then we might ask if there has ever been a computer program which has come about through blind, purposeless forces and processes such as mutation and natural selection. It takes an enormous amount of blind faith in materialism to believe that something like a computer program could emerge purely by happenstance and physical forces, without any intelligent input, but no one should ever doubt the prodigious capacity for faith among Darwinians.

Cost Comparison

President Bush is going to address the nation tonight on the immigration issue, an issue which has probably cost him ten points or more in his job approval ratings, mostly due to an erosion of conservative support.

President Bush, trying to build momentum for an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, is considering plans to shore up the Mexican border with National Guard troops paid for by the federal government, according to senior administration officials.

One defense official said military leaders believe the number of troops required could range from 3,500 to 10,000, depending on the final plan. Another administration official cautioned that the 10,000 figure was too high.

The president was expected to reveal his plans in an address Monday at 8 p.m. EDT. It will be the first time he has used the Oval Office for a domestic policy speech - a gesture intended to underscore the importance he places on the divisive immigration issue.

The question we wish to ask is what's the cost comparison between building a secure fence and placing 4000 to 10,000 Guardsmen on the border for the next twenty five to a hundred years or until an equal number of border policemen can be hired and trained? It seems to us that paying for all those Guardsmen/border police is an inefficient way to stop illegal immigration, but we haven't seen the numbers. Perhaps the president will tell us tonight what the cost will be.

Saddam's Mobile Labs

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters is very skeptical that those Iraqi mobile laboratories were being used to make hydrogen gas for weather balloons. Recently translated documents suggest a much more sinister purpose, but since that purpose is pretty much what the administration said before the war, the MSM has pretty much ignored the documents and their implications.

You can read Morrissey's take here.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that every captured document that has been translated has so far been consonant with, or actually supports, the White House's justification for going to war (WMD and Saddam's association with terrorists), and none of them have, as yet, been incompatible with it. We're waiting for the "Bush lied" crowd to at least acknowledge that he may have had good reason for believing what he was telling the American people in early 2003.

Teaching What's <i>Really</i> Important

Anyone wonder why more parents are opting to home-school their kids? Here's one reason:

Saying more role models could help reduce the social estrangement and high suicide rates of gay and lesbian students, the state Senate voted Thursday to require that the historical contributions of homosexuals in the United States be taught in California schools.

Apparently the first of its kind nationwide, the measure passed with no Republican support. It must also be approved by the Assembly and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has taken no position on it. California's Legislature last year became the first to authorize gay marriage, but Schwarzenegger vetoed the measure.

If passed, the textbook bill could have national implications. California is a huge portion of the textbook market, where it often sets trends, and many publishers put out a specific edition for the state that others can also use.

Why it is necessary to emphasize the contributions of homosexuals and not, say, famous adulterers the article doesn't say. Will history books of the future feel it necessary to note that the men enshrined on Mount Rushmore all preferred women? Our children may not know how to find Kansas on a map, but they'll know the really important stuff like which famous politicians practiced sodomy and which famous scientists liked to cross-dress.

It's a sure sign that we are no longer serious about quality education for our young when we deem it to be of such crucial importance that students know everyone's sexual preference, and that they display the socially correct attitudes about such matters, that our legislators mandate that these things be taught in our public schools.

Ironically, it's illegal in Pennsylvania to require that a note be placed in textbooks informing students that there is some difference of opinion about the truth of materialist explanations of living things, but it may soon be the law in California that textbooks encourage students to accept homosexuality as morally unproblematic.

I guess it goes without saying that the California state senate is controlled by Democrats.

Fuel Efficiency

A car that gets 8,000 mpg has been invented by a Brit:

A British inventor unveils the world's most fuel-efficient vehicle, a three-wheel "TeamGreen" car capable of doing 8,000 miles to the gallon. The 45-year-old inventor, Andy Green, from the University of Bath, built his budget eco-motor for just �2,000, and will be the sole British contender for the title of the world's most fuel-economic car in a global competition being held later this month.

It has taken Mr. Green more than two years to design and build the car, which will be the fourth eco-vehicle he has built. He holds the British record for fuel-efficiency, with 6,603 miles to the gallon in a previous car. According to the report, the new vehicle is powered by a single cylinder four-stroke engine with a capacity of just 35cc and runs with a special management system incorporating fuel injection.

But where do you put the kids and the groceries?

Did Dover Squander $1 Million?

As a consequence of the trial over intelligent design concluded last December, the taxpayers of the Dover Area school District find themselves stuck with a $1 million bill for lawyers' fees. A couple of writers, Joe Manzari and Seth Cooper, writing in The American Enterprise last month, raise an interesting question about this.

Recall the circumstances: A group of parents took the sitting school board to court over the policy of reading a paragraph to science students informing them that there is dissent among scientists about the truth of Darwinian evolution and that there exist other opinions on the matter among people qualified in the sciences. Meanwhile, before the case was complete and a decision handed down, that school board was defeated at the polls by another set of candidates who opposed the old board's policy.

At the first meeting of the new board in early December, before Judge Jones handed down his ruling, it was suggested that the new board rescind the ID policy and thus possibly render the case before Judge Jones moot. Whether it would have actually been declared moot by the judge no one knows, but there was nothing to lose by trying, especially since the new board had every intention of discarding the policy anyway, and $1 million dollars to save. If the case was declared moot because the policy was no longer in effect there evidently would have been no attorney's fees awarded, and the school district would have saved a lot of money.

Nevertheless, the board declined to take that action until after the judge had rendered his decision and the district incurred a $1 million bill. Manzari and Cooper ask:

Why would the new board keep in place the evolution policy it once so ardently opposed? The School District's suit brought national attention and ridicule to the community, and the testimony of the former board members exacerbated the situation. A likely forthcoming decision by Judge Jones would overrule both the board and the theory of intelligent design. By rescinding the old board's evolution policy prior to a court ruling, the new board might have curtailed legal costs and fees incurred by a victorious ACLU and AUSCS. But the new board accepted a likely stinging defeat in court, with painful legal bills attached.

It is now three months following the Dover Area School District's courtroom defeat and the ACLU, AUSCS, and the new board members have some tough questions to answer.

With all the reporting that the national and local media did on this controversy one might think that someone in the media besides Manzari and Cooper would have asked the Dover Board why they didn't rescind the policy before the judge ordered them to, but as far as I'm aware no one has. This is especially puzzling given that the present board ran on the promise to husband Dover's financial resources more responsibly than did their predecessors.

Bad History

Everything you ever wanted to know about why you should not be in the least impressed with the religious history presented in The Da Vinci Code (neither the book nor the movie) can be found at MarkRoberts.com. Roberts is a scholar of the first rank and his treatment of author Dan Brown's claims is both thorough and devastating.

The State of Star Wars

A few short years ago skeptics were scoffing at Ronald Reagan's proposal to build a defense against a missile attack on our soil. The doubters derisively dubbed the program a "star wars defense". The name stuck, but the derision behind it has long since evaporated. Those who thought that a workable missile defense system was technologically beyond reach, those who scorned Reagan's dream of being able to protect American cities against nuclear ICBMs launched from a hostile country, are no longer easily found.

As with so many other naysayers who proclaimed in confident accents that the U.S. couldn't accomplish some great goal, those who self-assuredly dismissed the ability of the U.S. to develop a workable missile defense system are left looking pretty dumb. The system they said could not be built is today up and running, and will soon be complete.

For an overview of what missile defense is, how it works, and where we are in its development read James Thayer's article in the Weekly Standard titled "Star Wars Now". Thayer begins with a description of the most recent test of the system:

High above the earth, the Aries missile streaked toward its target, creasing the thermosphere at two miles a second. Launched at 8:12 a.m. Hawaiian Standard Time, the 30-foot long solid-fuel rocket had weighed in at more than six tons and had generated 200 kilonewtons of thrust. But now, high overhead, the missile had separated from its booster, and it screamed along the edge of space.

It was doomed from the start. Far below, rolling gently in the sea off the Kauai coast, the USS Lake Erie waited. The ship--a Ticonderoga class cruiser--is 567 feet of gray lethality: Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles, MK 46 sub-killer torpedoes, and a brace of six-barreled Vulcan Gatling guns (rate of fire: a sweet 6,000 rounds per minute). The Lake Erie is outfitted with the Aegis ballistic missile defense system. The sailors detected the missile, and went to work.

"The firing team had no clue when the [Aries target] missile would be launched," said Fire Controlman 3rd Class Jacob Todd on board Lake Erie. The ship's crew tracked the missile's course, and quickly generated a fire-control solution. At 8:16 a.m., an SM-3 missile was launched from the Lake Erie's deck. Trailing a cone of fire, the SM-3 rose into the sulfurous yellow sky.

Six minutes elapsed. Then, a hundred miles up and 375 miles northwest of Kauai, the Lake Erie's missile ripped into the incoming Aries. The explosion was brilliant and furious and then instantly gone, and the only things remaining of the two missiles were slivers of hot metal drifting back toward earth.

This test occurred last November, and was the sixth successful missile interception out of seven attempts.

In a world in which North Korea, China, and Iran all have, or soon will have, nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, it is reassuring to know that there is a good chance that sending those weapons our way by mounting them on missiles is very likely going to be futile.

How to Help With the Fence

NewsMax has a short article on the proposed fence along the Mexican border. The article includes a little bit on the design and what interested persons can do to support the project. Give it a look and give some thought to helping out.

By the way, I'm told that the Mexican staff of my favorite eating spot, all of whom I'm assured are legal immigrants, showed up for work the day when immigrants were being called upon to take off from work to show the gringos how important they are. Co-workers who asked them about their decision were told simply that they came to the U.S. to work to support their families and that's what they were going to do.

That sort of immigrant - legal, hard working, and family centered - should be welcome in every community in this land.

Let's build the fence so that all the immigrants who come here are like those who prepare the food and do the custodial tasks at that restaurant.

Lerner For NSA

Barbara Lerner has an excellent piece of analysis in the National Review Online, wherein she points to three mistakes that the United States made in Iraq and discusses what to do about Iran. Thumbing her nose at the conventional wisdom, She completely vindicates Donald Rumsfeld and places the blame for both our successes and our failures in Iraq squarely on the shoulders of George Bush:

The surest way to draw ... wrong conclusions [about Iraq] would be to accept the analysis of the rebel generals currently baying for our Defense secretary's head, because the three mistakes they harp on aren't mistakes at all, and the three big mistakes we really did make weren't made by Donald Rumsfeld. They are the mistakes of the State Department, the CIA, and the rebel generals themselves, along with two other mistake-prone groups David Frum rightly added to my April 30 list in May 2004: "the British Foreign Office," and "most of the better-known foreign policy pundits." But it was John O'Sullivan in a National Review piece later that same May who put the responsibility for all our major decisions in Iraq-the winning ones and the losing ones-squarely where it belongs: on the shoulders of the man in charge, the man who tried to have it both ways, our president.

One should not get the impression, though, that Lerner is anti-Bush. She simply thinks that Bush listened to the wrong people on what to do about Iraq and doesn't want him to make those same mistakes with Iran.

One thing Barbara Lerner doesn't recommend, but I do, is that Bush name her National Security Advisor. She's smart, tough, and she's right. You won't read anything like this in the New York Times, but it's hard to argue with her analysis or her recommendations. Read the whole thing. It's important.

McLaren on <i>The Da Vinci Code</i>

Sojourners online magazine (link unavailable) has an interview with Brian McLaren on the religious impact and significance of The Da Vinci Code. As with a lot that McLaren says and writes there's a lot of gold and a little bit of dross in his replies. He's worth reading for the gold:

Sojourners: What do you think the popularity of The Da Vinci Code reveals about pop culture attitudes toward Christianity and the church?

Brian McLaren: I think a lot of people have read the book, not just as a popular page-turner but also as an experience in shared frustration with status-quo, male-dominated, power-oriented, cover-up-prone organized Christian religion. We need to ask ourselves why the vision of Jesus hinted at in Dan Brown's book is more interesting, attractive, and intriguing to these people than the standard vision of Jesus they hear about in church. Why would so many people be disappointed to find that Brown's version of Jesus has been largely discredited as fanciful and inaccurate, leaving only the church's conventional version? Is it possible that, even though Brown's fictional version misleads in many ways, it at least serves to open up the possibility that the church's conventional version of Jesus may not do him justice?

Sojourners: So you think The Da Vinci Code taps into dissatisfaction with Jesus as we know him?

McLaren: For all the flaws of Brown's book, I think what he's doing is suggesting that the dominant religious institutions have created their own caricature of Jesus. And I think people have a sense that that's true. It's my honest feeling that anyone trying to share their faith in America today has to realize that the Religious Right has polluted the air. The name "Jesus" and the word "Christianity" are associated with something judgmental, hostile, hypocritical, angry, negative, defensive, anti-homosexual, etc. Many of our churches, even though they feel they represent the truth, actually are upholding something that's distorted and false.

I also think that the whole issue of male domination is huge and that Brown's suggestion that the real Jesus was not as misogynist or anti-woman as the Christian religion often has been is very attractive. Brown's book is about exposing hypocrisy and cover-up in organized religion, and it is exposing organized religion's grasping for power. Again, there's something in that that people resonate with in the age of pedophilia scandals, televangelists, and religious political alliances. As a follower of Jesus I resonate with their concerns as well.

Sojourners: Do you think the book contains any significantly detrimental distortions of the Christian faith?

McLaren: The book is fiction and it's filled with a lot of fiction about a lot of things that a lot of people have already debunked. But frankly, I don't think it has more harmful ideas in it than the Left Behind novels. And in a certain way, what the Left Behind novels do, the way they twist scripture toward a certain theological and political end, I think Brown is twisting scripture, just to other political ends. But at the end of the day, the difference is I don't think Brown really cares that much about theology. He just wanted to write a page-turner and he was very successful at that.

Sojourners: Many Christians are also reading this book and it's rocking their preconceived notions - or lack of preconceived notions - about Christ's life and the early years of the church. So many people don't know how we got the canon, for example. Should this book be a clarion call to the church to say, "Hey, we need to have a body of believers who are much more literate in church history." Is that something the church needs to be thinking about more strategically?

McLaren: Yes! You're exactly right. One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history - it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn about church history. I think the disturbing would do them good. But a lot of times education is disturbing for people. And so if The Da Vinci Code causes people to ask questions and Christians have to dig deeper, that's a great thing, a great opportunity for growth. And it does show a weakness in the church giving either no understanding of church history or a very stilted, one-sided, sugarcoated version.

On the other hand, it's important for me to say I don't think anyone can learn good church history from Brown. There's been a lot of debunking of what he calls facts. But again, the guy's writing fiction so nobody should be surprised about that. The sad thing is there's an awful lot of us who claim to be telling objective truth and we actually have our own propaganda and our own versions of history as well.

Let me mention one other thing about Brown's book that I think is appealing to people. The church goes through a pendulum swing at times from overemphasizing the deity of Christ to overemphasizing the humanity of Christ. So a book like Brown's that overemphasizes the humanity of Christ can be a mirror to us saying that we might be underemphasizing the humanity of Christ.

Sojourners: In light of The Da Vinci Code movie that is soon to be released, how do you hope churches will engage this story?

McLaren: I would like to see churches teach their people how to have intelligent dialogue that doesn't degenerate into argument. We have to teach people that the Holy Spirit works in the middle of conversation. We see it time and time again - Jesus enters into dialogue with people; Paul and Peter and the apostles enter into dialogue with people. We tend to think that the Holy Spirit can only work in the middle of a monologue where we are doing the speaking.

So if our churches can encourage people to, if you see someone reading the book or you know someone who's gone to the movie, say, "What do you think about Jesus and what do you think about this or that," and to ask questions instead of getting into arguments, that would be wonderful. The more we can keep conversations open and going the more chances we give the Holy Spirit to work. But too often people want to get into an argument right away. And, you know, Jesus has handled 2,000 years of questions, skepticism, and attacks, and he's gonna come through just fine. So we don't have to be worried.

Ultimately, The Da Vinci Code is telling us important things about the image of Jesus that is being portrayed by the dominant Christian voices. [Readers] don't find that satisfactory, genuine, or authentic, so they're looking for something that seems more real and authentic.

Dan Brown's book is indeed a page-turner of a story. Unfortunately, he intends to discredit Christianity, and he does it by playing fast and loose with history. This is not necessarily bad in a novel, but it's clear he wants us to take the history seriously, and to the extent people do, Brown bears an onus of guilt for deceiving them. His claim that he's only writing a novel, and that it's all fiction, is disingenuous. This is plain to anyone who reads the statement at the front of the book where he attests to the veracity of the historical material contained within it.

Roadmap to Victory

Hugh Hewitt offers this five-point plan for GOP victory in November:

Win the war.

Confirm the judges.

Cut the taxes.

Control the spending.

Secure the border.

Since Democrats oppose all five of these goals, that leaves the Republicans as the nation's only hope that they will be accomplished. Success in achieving a majority of them, many conservatives believe, would translate into Republicans prevailing at the polls. The question is whether the Democrats will allow this to happen or whether they will seek to obstruct attempts to enact policies which would very likely prove their undoing in November.

The Democrats' biggest hope, it would seem, is that none of these initiatives succeed and that the public, oblivious to why nothing is getting done and weary of treading water, votes for a change in Congress.

The Greatest Threat to Free Speech

A lot of Christians are very upset about what they see as an assault on their faith by The Da Vinci Code. Some are threatening legal action, at least in Europe. It is ironic that the movie houses and filmmakers, both of which stand to make a boodle on this film, would never have dreamed of making or showing a film which debunked or embarrassed Islam. Muslims have managed to frighten Hollywood into a state of craven self-censorship.

As Joseph Bottum writes at First Things the lesson will not be lost on the fringe elements among Christians who will ask themselves why violence should not be used if it works so effectively.

An entertainment culture that regularly perpetrates the most disgusting insults on the Christian faith, knowing that Christians will not slit their throats over it, recoils in terror from printing a few bland cartoons of Mohammed.

The greatest threat to free speech in this country is the willingness of those who make their living off of it to exploit it to offend only those who will not punish them for it. What good is free speech, people are going to wonder, if it can be employed to satirize one group but not another? What good is it if those who threaten violence are exempted from its barbs?

The failure of the media and the entertainment industry to stand up to Islamic intimidation will only encourage others who have been offended by those institutions, which depend upon the protections of the first amendment, to threaten violence themselves.

Robert Wright Discusses the Anthropic Principle

Robert wright interviews a number of thinkers who grapple with the telic implications of the anthropic principle. A brief video clip of a particularly interesting session with physicist turned theologian John Polkinghorne is here, and links to interviews with Freeman Dyson, Owen Gingrich, and Brian Swimme can be found there as well. Swimme, by the way, does a pretty good job of convincing the listener that the universe must have been designed while trying vigorously to avoid that conclusion himself.

It seems to many that our universe is so astonishingly fine-tuned for life that either it is the product of purposeful design or there must exist a near infinite number of other universes in addition to our own. If there are enough worlds, the thinking goes, then every possible world, no matter how improbable, would have to exist among them. Since ours is a possible world it would have to exist, and therefore we shouldn't be too surprised that it does.

A lot of thinkers, including many who don't want to accept the conclusion that our world is intentionally designed, are very uncomfortable with the many-worlds hypothesis. They don't like the fact that there is no evidence for other worlds, and it's hard to imagine how there could be or how any test for another universe could be conducted. They're also uncomfortable with the obvious flouting of the principle that the most parsimonious explanations which fit all the facts are to be preferred in both science and philosophy. There's nothing parsimonious about an explanation which posits a near infinite number of entities that no one has, or could, observe. Moreover, the source of these other worlds seems problematic. How are they being produced? Is there some sort of universe generator that manufactures universes? If so, what sorts of laws would govern it? Where did it come from?

Finally, we might ask of the advocates of the many-worlds hypothesis why it is, given that we have evidence of minds producing order, complexity and fine-tuning but no evidence of other worlds existing, that they would embrace the speculation that they do. If this embrace is merely an act of desperation to enable them to escape the inference that there is a cosmic designer then why do they feel the need to do that? Why is the existence of a cosmic designer more philosophically repugnant to them than the existence of an infinite number of worlds?

Global Warming

Worried about global warming or do you think global warming is a bunch of hooey? Either way, Mark Steyn's column on the matter, like his columns on just about any matter, is a must read:

Do you worry? You look like you do. Worrying is the way the responsible citizen of an advanced society demonstrates his virtue: He feels good by feeling bad.

But what to worry about? Iranian nukes? Nah, that's just some racket cooked up by the Christian fundamentalist Bush and his Zionist buddies to give Halliburton a pretext to take over the Persian carpet industry. Worrying about nukes is so '80s. "They make me want to throw up. . . . They make me feel sick to my stomach," wrote the British novelist Martin Amis, who couldn't stop thinking about them 20 years ago. In the intro to a collection of short stories, he worried about the Big One and outlined his own plan for coping with a nuclear winter wonderland:

"Suppose I survive," he fretted. "Suppose my eyes aren't pouring down my face, suppose I am untouched by the hurricane of secondary missiles that all mortar, metal and glass has abruptly become: Suppose all this. I shall be obliged (and it's the last thing I feel like doing) to retrace that long mile home, through the firestorm, the remains of the thousands-miles-an-hour winds, the warped atoms, the groveling dead. Then -- God willing, if I still have the strength, and, of course, if they are still alive -- I must find my wife and children and I must kill them."

But the Big One never fell. And instead of killing his wife Martin Amis had to make do with divorcing her.

Read the rest at the link. It's funny.

For Puzzle-Solvers

Those readers who enjoy a challenging diversion now and then are invited to go here and see if you can figure out how the gap in the second triangle is created simply by rearranging the parts of the first.

The answer appears in the comments below the diagrams.

Taking Down the Bad Guys

Task Force 145, the special operations outfit assigned to hunt al-Zarqawi and other high value targets, struck over the weekend in Samarra. Bill Roggio has the report:

Over the past month, Task Force 145, the special operations unit designated to hunt Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other high value al-Qaeda targets, has dismantled al-Qaeda cells in the cities of Yusifiyah and Balad. It appears Task Force 145 has struck at two more al-Qaeda cells and killed a senior member of Ansar al-Islam over the weekend. On Friday, two al-Qaeda cells were dismantled near the city of Samarra.

On Saturday, [the task force arrested or killed] Ali Wali (a.k.a. Abbas bin Farnas bin Qafqa) who is described as "Ansar al-Islam's military command responsible for training and military operations including the planning of suicide operations, ambushes and kidnappings... an expert in the implementation of explosives as well as in the use of artillery, tanks and anti-aircraft weapons... and allegedly was an expert in toxins and poisons."

Here is how CENTCOM describes the action in their press release:

As the troops moved to intercept a vehicle occupied by three suspected al-Qaida associates, the assault force simultaneously took small arms fire from a nearby house. While the troops positioned to stop the car, armed men exited the house, two carrying shoulder-fired rocket launchers and one firing a light machine gun. The forces quickly neutralized the threat emanating from the structure, located approximately 20 kilometers southwest of Samarra, with small arms and rockets fired from supporting aircraft. The troops then detained the three suspects located in the vehicle, finding two AK-47s, ammunition, two improvised grenades and one hand grenade. The forces were then provided another location of a second, related vehicle occupied by suspected al-Qaida associates; two more detainees were taken after the troops stopped the vehicle approximately 15 kilometers east of the first intercepted automobile. Troops later searched the safe house discovering mortar rounds and grenades. One of the five suspects detained is believed to be a senior al-Qaida associate. All are currently being questioned for their level and involvement in terrorist activity.

Roggio goes on to tell us that:

In related news, another "High-ranking leader of terrorist organization Al Qaeda" was arrested in the Shiite holy city of Karbala. Abdel Fatih Isa (a.k.a. Abu Aisha) is described as "the chief organizers of terrorist acts in capital Baghdad. According to military sources Abu Aisha was an officer from the Iraqi army during Saddam Hussein's rule..." The myth that secular Baathist and radical Islamists would never collaborate should be sufficiently shattered at this point.

Karbala and Baghdad have been targeted by suicide bombers over the past day, killing upwards of thirty Iraqis. The arrest of Abu Aisha may have spurred the attacks, as he can now compromise his network while under interrogation. His network is aware he is missing, and now are forced to "use it or lose it" as Task Force 145 is likely on the hunt.

The MSM always portrays a flurry of bombings as an indicator of the insurgency's continued vigor when in fact it may be a sign of waning capabilities due to the attrition of their leaders and material assets. To see what a difficult situation al-Qaeda has gotten itself into in Iraq read Ed Morrissey's analysis of a captured document penned by an al-Qaeda source and just released by CENTCOM.

The Democrats say we're losing in Iraq. By "losing" they evidently mean that we're winning more slowly than they think we should.

GOP Dithers at its Peril

John Fund at Opinion Journal lays out some of the reasons why Republicans are in trouble in 2006 and may lose their majority in the House of Representatives. If they do, they have nobody to blame but themselves:

Ken Mehlman is the unflappable efficiency expert who chairs the Republican National Committee. Because he's not known for histrionics, his warning last week to GOP congressional staffers about this November's elections caused many on Capitol Hill to bolt upright.

Mr. Mehlman traveled to Capitol Hill to warn the staffers that they risked a disaster at the polls if they didn't pass meaningful legislation the conservative base cares about. Other GOP strategists go even further. "If the election were held today, I'd say the odds are 90% that we'd lose the House," says GOP consultant Mike Murphy.

Other Republicans aren't as gloomy, but they warn the GOP Congress has to act on a range of issues soon. Some polls show public disapproval of the GOP among conservatives reaching dangerously high levels. A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that only 66% of Republicans now approve of President Bush's performance. A new Associated Press/Public Affairs poll found 45% of self-identified conservatives disapprove of Mr. Bush's job as president, and 65% disapprove of the GOP Congress.

Republicans are notorious for going into a prevent defense as soon as they get the lead. Once they captured the majority they simply stopped governing and settled for not losing. They ceased trying to institute conservative reforms in spending and immigration, especially, grovelled whenever the Democrats threatened to resist what initiatives they did come up with, and waxed apologetic whenever the Democrats accused them of being meanies. If in November the voters spank them for their indolence and timidity they will have deserved it.

One bright spot is that the Democrats have offered absolutely nothing to the voters except the assurance that they're not Republicans and the tacit promise that if they regain the House Bush will be impeached. As bad as the Republicans are the Democrats are much worse.

While the world is spinning out of control, the country is running serious deficits, our borders are wide open to anyone who wants to cross, the Republicans sit on their hands, and the Democrats seek revenge for the Clinton embarrassments. Makes you wonder why we send these people our taxes every year.

A Natural Law Case Against Torture

A friend directs our attention to a piece by Dane Shelly at the Institute For Global Engagement in which he outlines an argument which concludes that torture is an absolute moral wrong. After using the piano to illustrate that there are both proper and improper uses to which anything can be put, he writes:

Humans, no less than pianos, are created for a purpose. Treating them in ways that do not conform to that purpose is simply wrong. For this reason, torture is always wrong because that is not what we were created for.

God created humans in a way that gives moral weight to how we treat others. Torture, then, offends the natural order (and its Creator) for two reasons: Humans were not created to torture others, and humans were not created to be tortured.

The problem with Shelly's argument is that one can agree with everything he says without being compelled to accept his conclusion that torture is absolutely wrong. A couple of counterexamples may serve to show why.

Humans were not created to live in prison, or to imprison others, and therefore it would be wrong to incarcerate someone, unless there is just cause for doing so. The fact that imprisonment is a state of affairs for which we were not designed does not make it absolutely wrong.

I don't know how Shelly feels about gay marriage, but his premises would demand that he find it absolutely wrong since we were not created for homoerotic sex. Indeed, humans were not designed for anal intercourse, so Shelly would have to say that it's absolutely immoral for couples, whether homo or heterosexual, to engage in it. Shelly may in fact hold to that position, but if he doesn't then he's acknowledging that just because a certain behavior is not one for which we were created or designed doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

There is a danger in seeking to absolutize particular behavioral acts, whether it be capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, torture or whatever. There are certainly acts which are absolutely wrong (beating or burning a child, for example), but they are wrong because they always violate one or more of the absolute principles given to us in Scripture.

The Bible commands us absolutely to love God, do justice, and show compassion. Any act which is wrong is wrong because it violates one of these three imperatives. Torture, like killing, is almost always either unjust or uncompassionate, but there may be times, as there is with killing, when torture may be just and/or compassionate. In the same way that it may be both just and compassionate to kill a terrorist in order to save other peoples' lives, so, too, it may be both just and/or compassionate to torture him to save other peoples' lives. Of course, the terrorist himself might fail to see the compassion in it (Both justice and compassion constrain us to never inflict any more pain or suffering than what is necessary to elicit the life-saving information), but the would-be victims would certainly see it.

The existential burden of a thoughtful Christian life lies in trying to find the fulcrum around which justice and compassion balance. In the search for that pivot there are few easy answers.

Running Low on Resources

Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that George Bush recently got some encouraging news from one of his biggest critics, General Barry McCaffery:

Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who served as President Clinton's drug czar and has been sharply critical of the Bush administration's conduct of the war, recently returned from a trip to Iraq.

He concluded: "The foreign jihadist fighters have been defeated as a strategic and operational threat to creation of an Iraqi government."

Kelly's article outlines the late misfortunes of al-Qaeda in Iraq and points out that their most effective weapon against the Iraqis, the suicide bomber, is a dwindling asset which, by its nature, is a non-renewable resource. In Kelly's view al-Qaeda is likely to have a diminishing role to play in the insurgency in Iraq. It's an interesting column.

Educating Characters

This news report contains an interesting nugget:

MT. LEBANON, Pa. -- The Mt. Lebanon School District is responding to a list of raunchy ratings about its students. The "Top 25" list of 2006 grades high school girls on their body parts, and it also describes in crude detail sexual information about the girls. In one case, a racial slur was used.

Channel 11 News learned a 17-year-old boy has been suspended in connection with the list. It's not clear how long that student will be suspended or if other students will be punished.

The superintendent, George Wilson, said he was appalled to hear about the list and assured parents the situation is being treated very seriously. In his statement Thursday, Wilson said, "No one can begin to understand the hurt, embarrassment and humiliation these young women have had to endure. Those proven to be responsible will receive consequences that include disciplinary action, a requirement for atonement and character education."

The nugget is those last two words. How, we wonder, is this student going to have his character educated in a public school setting? Exactly what will the education consist of? Will he simply be told that it's wrong to be disrespectful of others? What if he asks why it is wrong? I suspect that that question will call forth a lot of hemming and hawing and "everybody knows" type answers and such like, all of which will likely be very unpersuasive to the young miscreant.

When the courts required public schools to expel God from their classrooms and hallways they forced them to abandon the sole meaningful and effective basis for character education they had. The only approaches left to them now are either an appeal to force (e.g."Treat others with respect or else"), or an appeal to sentiment ("Don't you see how much you've hurt these girls?"). Of course, the problem may well be that the adolescent playboy doesn't much care that he's hurt these girls, and the appeal to force doesn't teach what's right, it only teaches what's prudent. Besides, there is something doubtful about a society which abhors the idea of people imposing their values on others letting Superintendent Wilson get away with doing exactly that at public expense.

Superintendent Wilson may think he can teach character, but if the young pervert asks any questions at all about why he should believe or accept anything he's being told, that'll be the end of the lesson. Good character, he will have learned, consists in doing what those who are in authority arbitrarily tell you to do.