More Liberal Theology

It seems that liberal theology is an unrelenting pandemic that attempts to persuade people to see the Bible in terms altogether different than those its Author intended. Perhaps someone should be working on an anti-liberal vaccine.

The church I attend offers a series of Bible-study programs designed to further one's understanding each of which runs for 34 weeks. We get a work book that contains reading assignments and then we meet once a week to discuss the assignment. We also watch a video presentation during class by a speaker who talks about the topic.

Unfortunately, the materials sometimes reflect the thinking of liberal theologians that take a different point of view. This causes me to place less emphasis on the materials and more on the opportunity to meet and grow with fellow participants of the Church.

In the course I attended last year, Ms Janet Howe Gaines was a speaker in the video that was shown during one of the classes and she made the comment that the Biblical book of Jonah was most likely a myth. This prompted me to do a little bit of research on Ms Gaines and subsequently post a response on Viewpoint which can be found here.

I have recently registered to participate in another course entitled Jesus in the Gospels which starts in the fall. I purchased the study materials well in advance so I might be better able to add as much value as possible to the group discussions. The material for the course was written by Leander E. Keck who served as New Testament consultant on the four-phase Disciple Bible study and covener of he consultation on the development of Christian Believer. Dr. Keck, Winkley Professor of Biblical Theology Emeritus and for Dean of Yale University Divinity School,, was the covener of the Editorial Board of the New Interpreter's Bible. Impressive, huh?

After delving into the study material, it wasn't long before I read the following:

Furthermore, the Gospels themselves sometimes disagree when reporting the same event. A famous instance concerns the day Jesus died. According to John, Jesus died the day the lambs were being slaughtered to be eaten at the Passover meal that night; but according to the other three Gospels, he died the day after the Passover meal. Each date suggests something important about Jesus, but both cannot be right historically.

While Dr. Keck may have difficulty understanding exactly when Jesus died, all four Gospels are consistent in their telling of when he was risen (Matthew xxviii. 1-10, Mark xvi. 1-18, Luke xxiv. 1-49 and John xx. 1-23). Therefore, it seems to me that all four Gospels must be consistent regarding the time of death of Jesus.

Then again, Dr. Keck states:

In Luke the angels announce "good news" for all the people: "To you is born this day [Christ], the Lord, " as well as "peace on earth" - adding up to a different good news about a different peace from the savior.

Right as Luke is in what he portrayed theologically, he apparently did not get the date exactly right historically. Nowhere else do we read of an empire-wide census that required all people to be registered in their ancestral home. Beside, Quirinius was governor of Syria in A.D. 6-7. Here Matthew's dating is to be preferred: Jesus was born in the last years of Herod's reign, which ended in 4 B.C. In any case, Luke's mistaken date should not keep us from seeing the point: Jesus the Savior was born in the heyday of Augustus the savior. The contrast is deliberate, and it calls for faith's perception of its significance.

Dr. Keck is referring to the second chapter of the book of Luke where it states:

1. And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2. And this taxing (enrollment or registration) was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.

And he seems to feel a need to point out that Cyrenius wasn't the governor at that time but, rather "Quirinius". I find it odd that someone would offer a work intended to inspire people to discipleship of the Lord and yet take every apparent opportunity to inject their perception of discrepancies.

Turning to the notes in my Companion Bible I find that

A Papyrus (in British Museum), being a rescript of the Prefect Gaius Vibius Maximus (A..D. 103-104) shows that Herod must have been acting under Roman orders. Vib. Max. was Prefect of Egypt, and wrote: "the enrollment by households being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause soever are outside their homes to return to their domestic hearths, that they may accomplish the customary dispensation of enrolment, and continue steadfastly in the husbandry that belongeth to them." There is a large number of Papyri relating to these enrolments. A second registration is recorded in Acts v. 37.

The notes also indicate that Cyrenius is Greek for the Latin Quirinus. His full name being Publius Sulpicius Quirinus.

Having discovered this reasonable explanation and numerous references to evidence that confirms the taxing as well as a solution to the confusion regarding Cyrenius / Quirinus I didn't bother to address the problem Dr. Keck has with the "date" he referred to earlier. I'm content to believe the problem is simply one he has created for himself by failing to "rightly divide the word of truth" 2 Timothy ii. 15.

I am convinced that difficulties arise for people like Dr. Keck simply because they're thinking only of the human agent as the writers of the Bible, instead of having regard to the fact that the Word of God is the record of the words which He Himself employed when He spoke "at sundry times and in diverse manners" Hebrews i. 1. and from not remembering (or believing) that "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost". 2 Peter i. 21, Mark xii. 36, Acts i. 16; iii.18; xxviii. 25; Hebrews iii. 7; ix. 8; x. 15; and 2 Timothy iii. 16 where we read "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

There are many "apparent contradictions" in the Bible. When the reader assumes it to be authored by man, they readily conclude the contradictions to be matters of fact and the quest for the treasure of blessings comes to an end. If the reader assumes it to be authored by God, apparent contradictions are an indicator that the reader has failed to "rightly divide the word of truth" and the quest has only just begun.

How such learned people can miss such an obvious and crucial truth is beyond my understanding.

Voting For Defeat

If more evidence were needed that the Democrats are the party of defeat and retreat Friday's House of Representatives vote on the non-binding resolution provides it. The bill praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and states that an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest. It passed 256-153:

voted against it. Only 42 voted in favor.

Why He Left the Left

Seth Swirsky explains why he, a standard sixties liberal, finally resigned from the Democratic party. It's an excellent piece that recounts a pilgrimage that will resonate with many. The Democratic party has shifted so far to the left over the last thirty years that many whose political views haven't much changed during that time find themselves coming to the realization that they presently have more in common with conservatives than they do with MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, and the Democratic party leadership.

Swirsky's essay reminds us how very far the Democrats have moved to the left since the days of Harry Truman and John Kennedy. No doubt there are others who feel, like Ronald Reagan, another former Democrat, that they haven't left the party so much as the party has left them.

GW: Crunchy Con

I've argued on previous occasions that true conservatism conserves. It conserves the best of our cultural heritage and the best of our natural heritage. Thus, those who look at our natural places as potential targets of economic exploitation and development are, whatever else they may be, not fully conservative. It seems to me that to take seriously our Biblical mandate for stewardship over the land we inhabit entails in part that we preserve as much of its natural richness as possible consistent with human welfare (as opposed to human greed). It's with that responsibility to nature in mind that the news that President Bush is creating a vast new preserve near Hawaii is most welcome:

The world's largest protected marine area is being created around the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, an archipelago 1,400 miles long and 100 miles wide that is home to rare marine mammals, fishes and birds. President Bush announced on Thursday his decision to create the nation's newest national monument from the vast chain of largely uninhabited islands, atolls, coral reef colonies and seamounts.

Conrad C. Lautenbacher, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the new protected area in Hawaiian waters would dwarf all others. "It's the single-largest act of ocean conservation in history. It's a large milestone," Lautenbacher said. "It is a place to maintain biodiversity and to maintain basically the nurseries of the Pacific. It spawns a lot of the life that permeates the middle of the Pacific Ocean."

The region hosts more than 7,000 species, at least a fourth of them found only there and including some on the government's endangered list, such as the Hawaiian monk seal and the nesting green sea turtle. Bush decided to invoke the 1906 National Antiquities Act and create a national monument for the first time during his presidency, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

Earlier Wednesday, the president had planned to use instead the National Marine Sanctuary Act, a law that would allow challenges from Congress and others to the decision, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to upstage Bush. "This means the area will get immediate protection rather than having to wait another year," the official said.

With the national monument designation, the federal government can immediately begin a five-year phaseout of the eight commercial fishing permits in the area and impose strict prohibitions on any other extractive uses.

President Clinton used the act to create 19 national monuments and expand three others to set aside 5.9 million acres of land, mainly in the West, and he drew widespread criticism from conservatives.

About 132,000 square miles of the area already is designated either a coral reef ecosystem reserve or a national wildlife refuge. By making it a national monument, the government will have greater power to protect it. Expanding the existing reserve and refuge to a monument of 140,000 square miles will make it the largest no-take marine conservation area in the world, just ahead of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia.

Does this make George Bush a "Crunchy Con"? No matter. He's doing a good thing and Viewpoint applauds him for it.

Putting Statistics in Perspective

The media keeps a running tab on the number of American servicemen and women killed in Iraq, the purpose of which, evidently is to hasten the day when the public decides it has had enough. Never is it mentioned, when this tally is updated, how remarkably low a number it really is. After four years of fighting the number of American military deaths has just topped 2500, roughly the same number of troops who died on a single day, D-Day at Normandy, during WWII.

In the Pacific during WWII we lost 6900 Marines taking Iwo Jima and 13,000 troops securing Okinawa.

Twenty eight thousand Confederates and 23,000 Union troops died at Gettysburg in three days.

Shifting perspective away from combat casualties, in the four years from 2001 through 2004 traffic fatalities in the U.S. exceeded 153,000, homicides in 2005 alone surpassed 16,900, and approximately 1200 people nationwide have died from heat exposure since 2003.

Indeed, an American is almost safer in the military in Iraq than in some American cities where the number of murders exceeds 300 per year.

Twenty five hundred deaths over four years is a terrible statistic, and the families of the dead find no consolation in comparisons such as this one. Nevertheless, politicians have to look at the cost through the lens of historical and actuarial realities, and in that perspective the number of military deaths is remarkably low, especially considering the extraordinarily high stakes involved in the Iraqi undertaking.

Don't Quit!

The text of the document found in the building where al-Zarqawi was killed is revealing, and it explicitly affirms Bush's policy of resolute refusal to cut and run and absolutely demolishes the Democrat rationale for a premature withdrawal. The text can be read here.

The short version is that the insurgents acknowledge that they're being worn down and degraded, the American strategy is working, and the best thing we could do, from their point of view, is to follow the advice of the "Last Helicopter" wing of the Democratic party and begin to withdraw. Since Bush is not likely to do that the next best thing is for al-Qaeda in Iraq to instigate a war between the U.S. and Iran to divert our resources out of Iraq and relieve the pressure on the insurgents.

The terrorists are on the ropes, and the Murtha, Pelosi, Kerry crowd, desperately fearful that Bush will succeed and be hailed by the public for his achievement, are riding to the terrorists' rescue with demands that we get out before they're absolutely defeated.

Read the insurgents' reasoning and the strategy laid out in the document at the link.

Class Act

The president's detractors have much to apologize for but rarely do. Contrast that with the president himself:

President Bush, who often teases members of the White House press corps, apologized Wednesday after he poked fun at a reporter for wearing sunglasses without realizing they were needed for vision loss. The exchange occurred at a news conference in the Rose Garden.

Bush called on Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Wallsten and asked if he was going to ask his question with his "shades" on. "For the viewers, there's no sun," Bush said to the television cameras.

But even though the sun was behind the clouds, Wallsten still needs the sunglasses because he has Stargardt's disease, a form of macular degeneration that causes progressive vision loss. The condition causes Wallsten to be sensitive to glare and even on a cloudy day, can cause pain and increase the loss of sight.

Wallsten said Bush called his cell phone later in the day to apologize and tell him that he didn't know he had the disease. Wallsten said he interrupted and told the president that no apology was necessary and that he didn't feel offended since he hadn't told anyone at the White House about his condition.

"He said, `I needle you guys out of affection,"' Wallsten said. "I said, 'I understand that, but I don't want you to treat me any differently because of this."' Wallsten said the president said he would not treat him differently, so Wallsten encouraged him to "needle away."

"He said, `I will. Next time I'll just use a different needle,"' Wallsten said.

If only those of his opponents in the media and in Congress who have vitriolically accused President Bush of lying to the American people in order to cajole us into war, as well as numerous other impeachable offenses, could display just half as much class and grace as he does.

Another Dubious Atrocity

Another apparently fabricated atrocity unravels in Gaza. News reports which claimed that Israeli artillary had killed Palestinian beachgoers, including an entire family, turn out to be highly dubious:

An Israel Defense Forces intelligence officer has confirmed that the explosion that killed eight Palestinians on Friday, was caused by a stockpile of Hamas explosives.

"Shortly after we stopped defensive firing at Hamas rocket launch pads which were deployed behind Palestinian human shields, members of Hamas scrambled to fire more rockets at our positions," said Col. M. "We have eyes on every meter of Gaza, from the sky, from the ground and from the sea. One of their rocket tripods collapsed inadvertently setting off an explosion of a stockpile of Qassam rockets. The Palestinians killed their own children. And this was not the first time."

Hamas terrorists fired rockets and mortar bombs from a crowded Gaza beach at southern Israel. Some of the rockets fell near the Israel city of Ashkelon. Some 17 rockets were fired between Saturday and Sunday morning. A man at a school in the Israel town of Sderot was wounded, Israel officials said.

Israel Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant said today that the Israel Defense Forces has additional evidence that it wasn't Israel artillery that hit the beach in Gaza. Galant, who commands Israel's southern command, said Israel stopped firing 15 minutes before the explosion. It's all on secure videotape from both sides of the conflict. Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he was sorry about the deaths, which included three children.

There's more information at the link. It is a tactic of terrorists everywhere in the Middle East, it seems, to use civilians as shields and then when something goes wrong to report an atrocity perpetrated by the Israelis or the Americans against the dead innocents. Few people in the region ever find out about the truth and in the West many of the critics of American and Israeli policy don't care what the facts are.

All that matters to many is the first impression made by the allegation. When the truth trickles out a few days later it scarcely makes a ripple in the public perception and is often overwhelmed by yet another false allegation of another atrocity being amplified in a complient press.

Hadji Girl

Michelle Malkin nails the rank double standard and hypocrisy of the attempt to crucify a Marine for singing a song that conveys insufficient sensitivity to the horrors of war.

Read Malkin's comparison to a truly execrable rap song that came out last year to effusive praise from the MSM, and then compare the lyrics of Hadji Girl for which Cpl. Joshua Belile is being put to the rack.

Better yet, listen to the song for yourself here (scroll down to pic of Belile). The song has a callousness and coarseness to it that I find unpleasant, even disturbing, and which the Marines might be justified in discouraging. Nevertheless, the outrage being expressed over the ballad strikes me as hysterical, absurd and based on claims about the song that are simply not true.

Leiberman to Jump Ship?

Senator Joe Lieberman, all but abandoned by the Democratic party in his primary race with businessman Ned Lamont, may be holding the decisive card. The Democrats have been frosty toward him because of his support for the Iraq war and his unwillingness to criticize the Bush administration for the manifold crimes of which the Democrats believe it guilty.

The word is, though, that if it looks like Leiberman will lose the primary to Lamont he may jump ship and run as an Independent, in which case he'd probably win re-election. Such a move would make it almost impossible for the Democrats to regain majority status in the Senate. Leiberman's defection would be an interesting payback to the party for its failure to support a long-term senator and former vice-presidential candidate.

Read the full account here.

UnTruth at TruthOut

Now that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has decided that there's no case against Karl Rove, Jason Leopold at TruthOut (the window).com looks pretty ridiculous with all that egg dripping down his face. A month ago he wrote:

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove. During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

We waited for the news to break in the MSM but it never did. Apparently it didn't because either Leopold's sources are unreliable or he just projected his own fantasy onto reality. Either way TruthOut looks bad. Again.

Security Crackdown in Baghdad

Mohammed at Iraq the Model gives us an inside look at the new security push in Baghdad:

Baghdad looked tense today as the city witnessed the launch of the new massive security operation "Forward Together". The feeling here ranges from anxiety to hope which I saw clear in the voice and looks of the people I met; in addition to the understandable anxiety that accompanies every new military operation I saw a lot about hope that this new operation may be able to stop or even reverse the deterioration of security in the capital.

Well maybe this is our best chance to achieve some progress security-wise and there's a growing feeling (I won't say dominant but it's here and it's visible) that the new government has the real and serious desire to end this tragic chapter of Baghdad's history.

It seems that President Bush's visit to Baghdad has given more credibility for the operation; that at least was what I heard from people around me or read in Baghdad's papers today; the visit definitely left a positive impression that America is dead serious this time about finding solutions for Iraq especially when it comes to security and critical parts of reconstruction like electricity.

No one can predict how much time this new operation will take but time in this case is of little importance compared to accomplishing the objectives of the operation.

The streets weren't so much different this morning except for increased security presence in the form of checkpoints and traffic jams that were associated with a few incidents and this is what I experienced this morning on my way to work, most likely that was because I live in one of the hot spots that was among those listed as targets for the operation.

I heard a number of explosions that weren't so far away with sporadic light and medium gunfire but news reports indicate that only one incident left casualties.

Some Baghdadis have shopped for extra amounts of water, food and fuel expecting the operation and curfews to take more than a few days and there's a minor internal immigration within Baghdad from the more dangerous districts to the relatively safer ones. This isn't happening in large numbers and I knew about it only from some families that I know that have temporarily left their homes in some districts.

In Baghdad you can't find the same feeling you would find in Ramadi, that is the fear that the operation will include collective punishment and this is because Baghdadis are used to living standards of a big city (in Middle Eastern standards though) but in the past few years they have suffered enough from militants of all types and want their city life back, they want to see militias and insurgents defanged and they want schools and markets and services to function properly again.

So for this operation to work out, we will need to focus on disarmament and collecting every piece of weapons that can be collected because each weapon represents a chance for more violence. In fact I believe this will be the main objective of this operation; to maintain strong security presence, make it harder for the militants to move around and do as much disarmament as possible.

The media here is reporting that the plans include collecting all unnecessary weapons from homes; that's if a family possesses two weapons fro example they will be allowed to keep only one small weapon with a limited amount of ammunition even if both weapons were licensed. There are also rumors that the campaign will include questioning those who have recently moved from other provinces and settled in Baghdad or those who relocated themselves within Baghdad to verify the reasons behind that movement.

There's more from Mohammed at the link. For three years we have been training the Iraqis to take over the task of providing security for their country. More and more they're doing exactly that. If the Iraqi government can suppress the insurgency in Baghdad and make it a safer place it will represent a quantum leap forward toward the goal of a stable Iraq.

Pelosi Then vs. Now

Kathryn Lopez at National Review Online shows that Nancy Pelosi must have been spending some time studying at the feet of the master flip-flopper, John Heinz-Kerry:

Pelosi on Iraq: Then vs. Now

June 14, 2006

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has called Operation Iraqi Freedom a "war of choice" and a distraction from "the real war on terror." At a "Take Back America" rally yesterday, Pelosi elaborated on her rationale:

PELOSI NOW:

"During the debate on the war, I was the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. I saw all the information, all the intelligence. And my statement was that I will not vote for this war because the intelligence does not support the threat being claimed by the administration."

But in fact, during the long debate on whether to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, Pelosi indicated that the intelligence she saw DID support the administration's claim of Saddam Hussein as a "gathering" threat:

PELOSI THEN:

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

During debate to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, Pelosi said:

PELOSI THEN:

"Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons." And she told Tim Russert on a November 17, 2002 appearance NBC's Meet the Press, "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

But flash forward to the "Take Back America" rally where Pelosi insisted:

PELOSI NOW:

"[T]here was never anything in the intelligence that said Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, never."

So which is it? As the House prepares to debate the war in Iraq and the Global War on Terror, these brazen flip-flops only further underscore Capitol Hill Democrats' lack of seriousness in combating terrorism. When it comes to strengthening national security, the American people have a clear choice between Republicans who want to meet the challenge and Democrats who want to relent and retreat.

K-Lo shouldn't be too put out by Pelosi's prevarications. After all, what does the truth matter when there are elections to be won and Republicans to be bashed? As postmodern philosopher Richard Rorty famously observed, "Truth is just whatever your peer group will let you get away with saying," and Pelosi's peer group will let her get away with saying anything at all that helps liberals like her look good to the voters.

Faith of a Scientist

Francis Collins is an erstwhile atheist turned theist who has a book coming out in which he discusses his faith. Collins is not just any former atheist. He's the scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome. His book explains why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real:

Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man "closer to God". His book, The Language of God, to be published in September, will reopen the age-old debate about the relationship between science and faith. "One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war," said Collins, 56.

"I don't see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years." For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to "glimpse at the workings of God".

"When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it," he said. "But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

"When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can't survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can't help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind."

Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: "This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."

Although Einstein revolutionised our thinking about time, gravity and the conversion of matter to energy, he believed the universe had a creator. "I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details," he said. However Galileo was famously questioned by the inquisition and put on trial in 1633 for the "heresy" of claiming that the earth moved around the sun.

Among Collins's most controversial beliefs is that of "theistic evolution", which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further. "I see God's hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way," he says.

"Scientifically, the forces of evolution by natural selection have been profoundly affected for humankind by the changes in culture and environment and the expansion of the human species to 6 billion members. So what you see is pretty much what you get."

Collins was an atheist until the age of 27, when as a young doctor he was impressed by the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients. "They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape, and yet instead of railing at God they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance," he said. "That was interesting, puzzling and unsettling."

He decided to visit a Methodist minister and was given a copy of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, which argues that God is a rational possibility. The book transformed his life. "It was an argument I was not prepared to hear," he said. "I was very happy with the idea that God didn't exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away."

His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: "It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, 'I cannot resist this another moment'."

Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the "natural" world. In this light he believes miracles are a real possibility. "If one is willing to accept the existence of God or some supernatural force outside nature then it is not a logical problem to admit that, occasionally, a supernatural force might stage an invasion," he says.

Sir Francis Bacon noted that "a little philosophy (science) inclineth man's mind toward atheism but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." The adage does not always hold, of course, but it certainly seems that the more one considers the grandeur of the cosmos and of life the harder it is to think of it as just a mindless accident. Just ask Antony Flew. Or Francis Collins.

Fact-Free

According to John Leo the left is on a fact-free diet.

Writing in Rolling Stone, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. assures us that the 2004 presidential election was stolen. This popular conspiracy theory has attracted many Democrats, from the clearly unbalanced to John Kerry himself. (Professor and activist Mark Crispin Miller of NYU says Kerry told him he believes the election was stolen.)

Kennedy thinks it's fishy that the recorded vote didn't match the exit polls in four battleground states where Kerry was supposedly ahead. He also thinks the Republicans discouraged voters by creating long lines at voting stations in heavily Democratic areas. But bitter surmise isn't proof. And according to a long and detailed analysis on Salon.com -- no hotbed of Republican thought -- the evidence Kennedy cites isn't new, and his argument is filled with distortions and the deliberate omission of key data.

Why would Kennedy damage his credibility this way? This may not be breaking news, but if an assertion reflects a widely shared emotion, it can make great headway in this culture without any need to prove its truth. We have been through this many times. The 2000 election was allegedly stolen, though no credible investigation backed up the claim, not even the one by the Civil Rights Commission, which was then firmly in Democratic hands.

The Katrina theory that blacks died because of racism wasn't true, but it fit both the emotions and the beliefs of the political and media establishments. The Duke rape case also unfolded along the lines of conventional liberal beliefs about privileged whites and allegedly dumb jocks. The leadership at Duke should be ashamed. As the facts emerge, ever so slowly, it is becoming apparent that the prosecutor should be disciplined for his shocking behavior. Assertion doesn't always beat facts, but it happens a lot. For example, many of President Bush's detractors are saying that his argument for keeping troops in Iraq -- to achieve a democratic transformation -- is a new rationale meant to distract from the missing WMDs. The New York Times made that charge in an editorial on April 27. But it isn't true. Bush listed democratic transformation in Iraq as one of his aims before the war, as the Times acknowledged in an editorial on Feb. 27, 2003. Distilling the president's various arguments on Iraq down to the one on which a lot of people think they were snookered -- the WMDs -- is a distortion, but it accurately expresses a popular feeling, so who cares if it isn't so? Not the Times, apparently.

Some fact-free assertion still fails. For a while, many people seemed to believe (wanted to believe) that abortions in the United States rose 25 percent after Bush was elected in 2000. Howard Dean was sure of it. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, too. But no, facts unexpectedly intruded. Abortion continued to decline, albeit slightly, during the Bush years. And lots of people seemed certain that anti-Bush voters would flock to Canada after the 2004 vote. Despite the many predictions ("Canada Awaits American Influx," was one headline), the expected stampede turned out to be a trickle. U.S. migration to Canada declined in the six months after Bush won.

With a big boost from the news media, assertion managed to topple Larry Summers at Harvard. Some reporting mangled Larry Summers' controversial comments on women and science. A headline in The Washington Post magazine said, in part, "When Harvard's president questioned the scientific aptitude of girls ..." But Summers didn't say that the best women couldn't achieve at the level of the best men. He said that there are more males than females at the very top, "about five-to-one at the high end," which is roughly what the research shows. The bell-shaped curve for the distribution of intelligence is flatter for males than for females; there are more very bright males at the top and more very dull males at the bottom.

Discussing this evidence is a no-no at Harvard, so Summers would have been driven out even if he had been understood and quoted correctly. But he was ousted by yet another fact-free assertion -- that he had somehow demeaned women. He hadn't, but the strategy of his detractors worked. Summers apologized and then quit for hurting some people's feelings. That's what happens when emotions are allowed to beat facts.

Leo could have written an article perhaps ten times as long if he had wanted to include all the examples he could have of the left's disdain for facts.

It must be frustrating for the lefties who get so excited that events are on the verge of turning their way, that Bush is going to soon be destroyed by some scandal or whatever, only to have their hopes dashed every time the truth finally wiggles its way to the fore. It's no wonder they find facts so uncongenial.

Defaming Religion

It amazes us that in these times and in the liberal West a woman is going on trial for the crime of defaming a religion. One thing you probably could guess about the charges against her before you even read the synopsis below: The religion isn't Christianity.

Italian author and veteran journalist Oriana Fallaci goes on trial Monday, charged with defaming Islam in a 2004 book. Fallaci, who lives in New York, was not expected to attend the hearing in Bergamo, northern Italy.

Muslim activist Adel Smith filed a lawsuit against Fallaci, charging that some passages in her book, "The Strength of Reason," were offensive to Islam. Smith's lawyer cited a phrase from the book that refers to Islam as "a pool ... that never purifies."

Fallaci told The Associated Press last year that "I have expressed my opinion through the written word through my books, that is all."

Where are the staunch defenders of free speech and freedom of the press in Italy, or here, for that matter? If Fallaci were going on trial for having defamed the Catholic Church the media would be in full-throated dudgeon over the injustice of it all. As it is there's hardly a peep heard about this outrage beyond the conservative blogosphere and a few left-wing outriders like Christopher Hitchens and Nat Hentoff.

The dhimmitization of the West continues. In the global jihad to establish a world-wide caliphate the Islamists have already secured the surrender of most of the liberal/left simply by threatening them with death.

Nattering Nabobs of Negativity

Michael Barone gets good wood on the ball in this essay on the effect that the constant negativism churned out by the Democrats and their various mouthpieces is having on voter attitudes:

"This is just to cover Bush's (rear) so he doesn't have to answer questions" about things in Iraq, said Rep. Pete Stark, second ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. "This insurgency is such a confused mess that one person, dead or alive at this point, is hardly significant today," said Rep. Jim McDermott, formerly the lead Democrat on the House ethics committee. The deceased, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the 2004 presidential nomination, was a small part of "a growing anti-American insurgency." He said the United States should get out of Iraq. "We're there for all the wrong reasons." Such was the reaction of the left wing of the Democratic Party to the killing of al-Qaida terrorist Abu Masab Zarqawi in Iraq. It was not the dominant note sounded by Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry all hailed the death of Zarqawi in unequivocal terms. And if Democrats also made the point that his death probably won't end the violence in Iraq, they were only echoing what George W. Bush said.

Nevertheless the Stark-McDermott-Kucinich reaction, echoed and amplified, often scatologically, by dozens of commenters on the popular dailykos.com and myDD.com left-wing Websites, tells us something disturbing about the Democratic Party -- and provides a clue why Democrats were unable to eke out a win in last week's special congressional election in the 50th congressional district of California.

It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to succeed in Iraq. So vitriolic and all-consuming is their hatred for George W. Bush that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some considerable success, seeking there -- a democratic government, with guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women -- and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton. (emphasis mine)

Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World War II. Allegations of American misdeeds are repeated over and over; the work of reconstruction and aid of American military personnel and civilians is ignored.

In all this they have been aided and abetted by large elements of the press. The struggle in Iraq has been portrayed as a story of endless and increasing violence. Stories of success and heroism tend to go unreported. Reporters in Iraq deserve respect for their courage -- this has been an unusually deadly war for journalists, largely because they have been targeted by the terrorists. But unfortunately they and the Bush administration have not done a good job of letting us know that last pertinent fact.

We are in an asymmetrical struggle with vicious enemies who slaughter civilians and bystanders and journalists without any regard for the laws of war. But too often we and our enemies are portrayed as moral equivalents. One or two instances of American misconduct are found equal in the balance to a consistent and premeditated campaign of barbarism.

All of this does not go unnoticed by America's voters. The persistence of violence in Iraq has done grave damage to George W. Bush's job rating, and polls show that his fellow Republicans are in trouble. Yet when people actually vote, those numbers don't seem to translate into gains for the Democrats. In 2004, John Kerry got 44 percent of the votes in the 50th district of California. In the April 2006 special primary, Democrat Francine Busby got 44 percent of the votes there. In the runoff last week, she got 45 percent and lost to Republican Brian Bilbray.

The angry Democratic left set the tone for the 2003-04 campaign for the party's presidential nomination, and John Kerry hoped that it would produce a surge in turnout in November 2004. It did: Kerry got 16 percent more popular votes than Al Gore. But George W. Bush got 23 percent more popular votes in 2004 than in 2000.

In California's 50th, both parties made mammoth turnout efforts, but the balance of turnout and of opinion seems to have remained the same, even though Democrats had a seriously contested primary for governor and Republicans didn't. The angry Democratic left and its aiders and abettors in the press seem to have succeeded in souring public opinion, but they haven't succeeded in producing victory margins for the Democrats. Maybe they're doing just the opposite.

Spiro Agnew famously referred to the press once upon a time as "nattering nabobs of negativity," and his felicitous formulation might well be extended to cover almost the entire liberal/left of the contemporary political spectrum.

For six years George Bush has been absorbing the most furious and vicious attacks on his competence and character that any president has had to endure since Abraham Lincoln. The constant drumbeat of derision has depressed his approval ratings among a public which hasn't any real idea of how well he's doing but which assumes that his performance must be pretty bad since everybody is saying so. Evidence that the public doesn't really know how Bush is doing can be found in polls that ask about the health of the economy. The majority of respondents say that they think the economy is doing poorly when in fact it's as healthy as it's been in decades.

Through all the punishment he has taken and all the unjust, unfair criticism the media and his opponents have fired at him, Bush has remained steadfast and determined to do what he thinks is right. For this he has our admiration and respect, even if we do wish he was tougher on illegal immigration and government spending.

Lefty Logic

Here's a good example of asserting one's conclusion and then basing the conclusion on the assertion (i.e. begging the question):

The U.S. does not approve of torture, claims President Bush. Does anyone have any doubt that Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly, the Iraqi customs inspector who turned on Zaqarwi after being arrested and held for months by the Jordanian police, talked as a result of being subjected to torture?

"Officials say Karbouly confessed to his role in the terror cell and provided crucial information on the names of Zarqawi commanders and locations of their safe houses."

So now we use information gained from torture to murder our target. What makes us different from them?

Let's walk through this: No one on the paranoid left doubts that we use torture, therefore Karbouly was tortured. Pretty convincing, wouldn't you say?

For good measure we're treated to an example of undistributed middle as well: The killing of Zarqawi is "murder". Terrorists also murder. Therefore we're no different than terrorists.

This is the sort of thinking that fills the left-wing blog sites and upon which people will be basing their votes in November. Lord, give us patience.

Londonistan

This is a must read column by Melanie Phillips at The Times Online. It contains numerous salutary lessons for us here on this side of the pond:

According to remarks attributed in the past few days to security sources, no fewer than 1,200 Islamist terrorists are biding their time within British suburbs. Yet does Britain even now fully understand the nature of the threat it is facing, let alone have the will to deal with it?

The recent report by the Commons Intelligence Committee on last July's London bombings barely scratched the surface of the failure by the security establishment. It failed to note, for example, Britain's dirty little secret: that from the 1990s, Islamist radicals had been given free rein in Britain in a "gentlemen's agreement" that if they were left alone, they would not turn on the country that was so generously nurturing them. The result was "Londonistan", as Britain became the hub of al-Qaeda in Europe.

This intelligence debacle, however, was only the tip of the iceberg. Among Britain's governing class - its intelligentsia, its media, its politicians, its judiciary, its Church and even its police - a broader and deeper cultural pathology persists to this day. Londonistan is more than the physical presence of Islamist extremists. It is also a state of mind. To a dismaying extent, the British have signed up to the false narrative of those who are laying siege to their society.

The problem lies in a refusal to acknowledge that Islamist extremism is rooted in religion. Instead, ministers and security officials prefer to think of it as a protest movement against grievances such as Iraq or Palestine, or "Islamophobia". They simply ignore the statements and signs that show unequivocally that the aim is to Islamicise the West.

In large measure, this is the outcome of a profound loss of cultural nerve. The doctrines of multiculturalism and minority rights, themselves the outcome of a systematic onslaught by the British elite against the country's own identity and values, have paralysed the establishment, which accordingly shies away from criticising any minority for fear of being labelled as bigoted.

As a result, it ignored the radicalisation of many British Muslims by extremist Islamic institutions. Worse still, "grievance culture" has meant that instead of fighting the paranoia and lies driving the Islamists' hatred of the West, British society is afflicted by the very same pathology.

Minority rights doctrine has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a "victim" group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the "oppressive" majority.

Britain effectively allowed itself to be taken hostage by militant gays, feminists or "anti-racists" who used weapons such as public vilification, moral blackmail and threats to people's livelihoods to force the majority to give in to their demands. So when radical Islamists refused to accept minority status and insisted instead that their values must trump those of the majority, Britain had no answer.

This was disastrous because Islamist violence is fuelled by precisely this false sense of victimisation. The mendacious message preached by Islamist leaders, that Britain and America are engaged in a war on Islam rather than a defence of their societies, is a potent incitement to terror by whipping up a hysteria that Muslims are under attack.

So any attempt by the West to defend itself against terror becomes a recruiting sergeant for that terror. The more atrocities committed against the West, the more the West tries to defend itself; and the more it does so, the more hysteria among Muslims rises that they are under attack, and the more they are thus incited to hatred and to terrorism.

The circle is completed by British fellow-travellers who promulgate the same morally inverted thinking, and thus help further to incite both Muslim extremism and Western defeatism. After the London bombings, this gave rise to the widely expressed view that the major problem was not Islamic terrorism but Islamophobia.

It is impossible to overstate the importance - not just to Britain but to the global struggle against Islamist extremism - of properly understanding and publicly challenging this moral, intellectual and philosophical inversion, which translates aggressor into victim and vice versa. For it has destabilised debate by allowing Muslims to argue that British and American foreign policy is unfair and aggressive towards the Muslim world.

So profound is the fear of being branded a bigot among British liberals that the obvious examples of illogicality, untruths and paranoia in such discourse have never been challenged.

The British Establishment also ignores this because it is in a state of denial. With few exceptions politicians, Whitehall officials, senior police and intelligence officers and academic experts have failed to grasp that the problem to be confronted is not just the assembly of bombs and poison factories but what is going on inside people's heads that drives them to such acts.

Transfixed instead by the artificial division it has erected between those who actively espouse violence and those who do not, the British Establishment rejects the idea that the hatred of Jews, Israel, America and the West that suffuses the utterances of the Muslim Brotherhood forms an ideological conveyor belt to terrorism. The result of this institutionalised denial has been that the Government has settled upon a disastrously misguided strategy. Believing that Islamist terrorism is merely about grievances, it thinks it can appease Islamist rage by pandering to extremism and inviting Muslim Brotherhood radicals into the heart of the British Establishment as advisers.

In Britain, hundreds of thousands of Muslims lead law-abiding lives and merely want to prosper and raise their families in peace. But truly moderate Muslims are finding that, through such appeasement, the host community is cutting the ground from under their feet and delivering them into the hands of the extremists. This is a deliberate policy of riding the Islamist tiger. But those who ride a tiger may get eaten.

As Phillips' essay suggests, the West simply does not understand what is driving the Islamists. We think that if we can just work out a solution to the Palestinian problem they'll be mollified, or if we can meliorate Arab poverty they'll be grateful to us. What Western liberals don't understand is that the only thing that is going to satisfy the Islamists is that we either convert to Islam or, one way or another, we disappear. They are at war with our civilization and it is a war to be fought, in their minds, until either they prevail or they're all dead. The sooner we awake to this grim reality the better chance our children have of not having a knife cutting at their throats.

Last Word on <i>Overdoing</i>

Byron gets the last word on our conversation on Overdoing the Outrage. Check out his remarks on the Feedback page.

Democrat Book-Banners

It seems that free speech is cherished by liberals only when it allows them to say what they wish to say. When the opinions expressed are of a sort they find unpalatable then calls for censorship go out across the land:

Two New Jersey Democrats are pushing to have Ann Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," banned from all bookstores in their state because she criticized four 9/11 widows known as "the Jersey Girls."

In a joint press release issued Friday, New Jersey Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender say they want New Jersey retailers to "ban the sale of [Coulter's] book throughout the state."

"Ann Coulter's criticism of 9-11 widows, whose only desire since the attacks have been to repair their shattered lives and protect other families from the horrors they have experienced, is motivated purely by petty greed and hate," the two Democrats complained.

"Coulter's vicious characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books . . . She is a leech trying to turn a profit off perverting the suffering of others."

Quigley and Stender conclude:

"No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering. We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter's book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves."

It used to be liberals who would insist, in self-righteous accents, that though they may despise what their opponents say, they'd "fight to the death" for their right to say it. That was back when liberals were campaigning to use profanity and pornography on our television shows, movies, and music, and the hazard of actually having to risk one's life was vanishingly remote.

Now that Muslims are actually killing people who utter offensive things about their religion and now that some conservatives are expressing unpleasant sentiments about liberal heroines, we haven't heard that slogan much. The sunshine soldiers who claimed to be prepared to stake their lives in defense of free speech seem to have melted away into the country-side and given way to liberal appeasers and book-banners.

Left-Wing Self-Parody

How has the left responded to the killing of Abu Zarqawi? By diving into the deep pools of self-delusion. Ben Johnson has the rundown at FrontPage.com. It's too long to copy in its entirety, but here are a few of myriad examples he gives of what passes for insight on the dyspeptic left:

Kurt Nimmo - whose article appeared in The Final Call, the newspaper of the Nation of Islam - wrote Zarqawi's death was "simply another dimension of a rather transparent psychological operations campaign run out of the Pentagon." That is, the CIA put one over on the American people. "Al-Zarqawi is little more than hype, a neocon propaganda program...in fact, it is difficult to prove 'al-Qaeda' itself actually exists." In his view, America also "engineered" the Iraqi "civil war."

Ron Jacobs also endorses the belief that Washington created Zarqawi:

"There is a likelihood that the forces of sectarian hatred have already done so much...that those hopes for a united nation without foreign occupation have been destroyed forever. Some folks even suggest that this was part of Washington's plan all along."

Jonathan Cutler, who is - surprise! - an Associate Professor of Sociology and American Studies at Wesleyan University, dubbed Zarqawi the "ideological 'mirror image' of Washington's Neocons/Right Zionists." The good doctor blogs these perfidious Jews - err, "neocons" - may have lied about Zarqawi's death altogether:

"Right Zionists will not shed a tear for Zarqawi, but they may miss him when he is gone. If he is gone. For Right Zionists, Zarqawi is really an indespensible enemy."

TalkLeft floats the opposite conspiracy theory: perhaps Zarqawi had been long dead by Thursday:

"His face looks very intact for someone who was killed by two 500 pound bombs...Because this Administration has so little credibility and a history of distracting us with terror news when it is hurting politically, like now, I can't help but wonder if al-Zarqawi wasn't killed some time ago and they just decided to announce it today and tell us he was killed in yesterday's raid."

Air America host Randi Rhodes - whose program previously joked about assassinating President Bush - upbraided the troops for their inhumanity. Even al-Qaeda, she noted, asked Zarqawi to stop killing fellow Muslims. "Then you have to say to yourself, my God: Al-Qaeda is telling Zarqawi to cut the crap with the killing of the Iraqis, and yet we haven't cut the crap with the killing of the Iraqis." Her Air America colleague and rumored Ohio Democratic candidate Jerry Springer agreed, "We killed a hell of a lot more people just by the decision to go to Iraq than ever died at the hands of Zarqawi."

And on it goes. America is thoroughly evil, ergo anything America does is evil, therefore even killing Zarqawi must be shrouded in evil.

These people are a parody of themselves. There are more examples at the link.

Sucker Punching the Military

The MSM, ever-determined to focus on the cloud inside every silver lining and always ready to give our military a good swift kick in the solar plexus, has been reporting a story about a witness who claims to have seen American troops beat Abu Zarqawi to death.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters tells us why he thinks the story is a fraud.

Anyone with any sense at all would have had serious questions about this story - questions which should have precluded its seeing the light of day. Nevertheless, the good folks at AP and elsewhere just can't help yielding to the impulse to give our troops a good sucker punch when the opportunity presents itself.

Meanwhile, Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker discusses reasons for thinking that the Marines may be the victim of a hoax at Haditha.

Allah Pundit at Hot Air is a little skeptical of, but nevertheless impressed by, Feldman's argument.

Both evidently would agree, however, that John Murtha's verdict that the marines were guilty of a deliberate atrocity was premature, unjust, pompous, and stupid.

More Overdoing

Byron is dissatisfied with my reply to his original e-mail taking me to task for my criticism of Andrew Sullivan (here). He argues (see Feedback Page) that I failed to give a satisfactory explanation for criticizing Sullivan's denigration of the administration for opting not to include Article 3:1c of the Geneva Conventions in the Army Field Manual and concludes that I owe Sullivan an apology.

I'd like to explain why I think no apology is needed.

Byron states that:

Sullivan shows that we have violated the Geneva conventions and go against international law, a fact that is commonly accepted. Do you disagree? It is this that makes us rogue, not some odd interpretation you give to his words, suggesting that he is opposed to hurting the feelings of killers.

This is somewhat misleading. Sullivan has written strongly against the alleged use of torture in the past, to be sure, but in the post to which I responded in Overdoing the Outrage he was condemning the administration specifically for its refusal to include Article 3 part 1c in the Army Field Manual. It is that particular complaint of Sullivan's I criticized, and Byron is inadvertantly changing the subject when he shifts the discussion to the broader question of torture.

He changes the subject again when he says:

But your "straw man" argument and your caricature of Mr. Sullivan's views are way off base. Mr. Sullivan did not say we ought not "question the courage of detainees" (what reasonable court could call that torture?).

But it is not torture, exactly, that is at issue in 3:1c. The Article states: ....the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons....Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.

If Byron means to ask "what reasonable court could call questioning one's courage humiliating or degrading treatment" the best answer, perhaps, is to ask him whether he would not himself find it humiliating or degrading to have his courage or manhood challenged. Most people would, especially in the presence of others and especially, for a Muslim, by a female interrogator. But don't take my word for it. The concern was raised in the L.A. Times article which initially triggered Sullivan's outrage.

Byron goes on to write that:

Mr. Sullivan simply nowhere suggests, as you put words in his mouth, that we have to treat POW's as "visiting dignitaries" or that we dare not incarcerate captured terrorists. If this possibility is why Mr. Bush scuttled the law on this, it seems pretty thin logic to me. Be that as it may, Mr. Sullivan surely was not operating with these concerns in mind: he clearly was opposing torture.

This paragraph is confusing. I didn't suggest that Sullivan himself actually said any of this, as a fair reading of my post will show. My point was that his insistence that we abide by 3:1c would lead to these kinds of absurd restrictions on how detainees can be treated, whether Sullivan thinks so or not.

Had he said what you said he said I suppose it would be right to call him silly. I simply think it is outlandish of you to suggest that his piece had anything to do with your peeve.

The only thing I can say to this is that anyone who doubts that it was the decision to drop Article 3:1c from the Army Field Manual that precipitated Andrew's diatribe against the administration should go to his blog and read the post for himself.

You slander him by implying Mr. Sullivan thinks we ought not incarcerate terrorists. He has said no such thing. If he did it would be stupid.

Of course I didn't say that Sullivan thinks this, and I don't know why Byron would accuse me of having done so. What I suggested was that the logic of his position leads to that kind of an absurdity. I'm glad Byron thinks that anything which leads to the conclusion that incarceration should be prohibited is stupid, because that's exactly what the vagueness and ambiguity of 3:1c would, or could, result in.

At first glance it would seem that the proscription of humiliating and degrading treatment is a prohibition that every nation, including ours, should respect. But in fact it's meaningless and dangerously restrictive. It is little more than a feel-good clause that allows the signatories to present themselves to the world as humane when in fact, if taken seriously, it's virtually impossible to abide by.

What determines whether an act is humiliating or degrading is more the individual's reaction to the act than the act itself. Most people, but not all, would feel humiliated if yelled at or insulted. Many, but not all, Muslims would feel humiliated if placed in a subordinate position to a woman. If we are to take the Geneva article seriously, which both Byron and Andrew Sullivan insist that we do, then we should never allow a Muslim detainee to be interrogated by a woman if he would find that humiliating. I, and I presume Byron, would find prison both humiliating and degrading. Suppose the Muslim jihadis do as well. If so, 3:1c would, if strictly followed, forbid us from incarcerating terrorists. In other words, the sensibilities of the prisoner determine what measures we can take against him. I submit that this is an absurd position to put ourselves in.

Byron suggests that I exaggerate when I claim that 3:1c would effectively proscribe incarceration, but how could it not? Does he think some forms of humiliation, like imprisonment, are acceptable to use against detainees but others are not? If so, how are we to choose between them? Who decides what's humiliating for a detainee and what isn't? The interrogator? The secretary of defense? The detainee? Byron offers no answer. He seems, rather, to conflate humiliation and torture and insists simply that we should not employ torture and, by extension, humiliation.

Even if the military would arbitrarily be permitted to degrade terrorists by confining them to a cell and depriving them of their freedom, there are lots of things they would not be allowed to get away with, and the L.A. Times article that started this discussion mentions a few of these (shouting at prisoners, questioning their manhood, and long-term solitary confinement, for example). There are numerous others: using deception to get information, giving the prisoner Western food, shackling - in short, anything the prisoner found demeaning would be proscribed by a serious reading of 3:1c.

If I am wrong about this then I welcome someone explaining to me my error because I don't see how the absurdities mentioned above can be avoided if 3:1c is to be taken literally, and if it's not to be taken literally then how can it be binding at all?

Meanwhile, in lieu of some meaningful definitions as to what constitutes humiliating and degrading treatment, adherence to 3:1c places needless restrictions on our military authorities. Interrogators and police, afraid of crossing some invisible line that could get them hauled before a war crimes tribunal, will tend to do as little as possible to elicit life-saving information from terrorist prisoners. In an environment where our kids' lives are at constant risk at the hands of those who will stop at nothing to kill them, it would be irresponsible to insist that our interrogators and police adhere to such vague guidance as 3:1c offers.

Until someone shows me how this is mistaken I will continue to maintain that it is silly for Andrew Sullivan, or anyone else, to condemn the administration for omitting this proscription from the Army Field Manual.

Mere Christianity

I recently came into possession of a book by C. S. Lewis that contains, among many of his great works, Mere Christianity. I read several of his books a long time ago and felt it was time to revisit what he had to say. (I have a great memory except that it's short.) Happening upon the following passage, it occurred to me that many people have communicated the essence of this message in the past but few have done so as eloquently as Lewis does so I thought it worth while to post here.

Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.

With all due respect to this great Christian believer, (and to brother Dick who, I believe, may be inclined to the same position), it seems to me that sufficient evidence is provided in the Word to show that, in fact, Lewis errs in his last statement. See my notes at the end of the article.

But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself. Christians are Christ's body; the organism through which He works. Ever addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help those outside you must add your own little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man's fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more work.

Another possible object is this. Why is God landing in this enemy-occupied world in disguise and starting a sort of secret society to undermine the devil? Why is He not landing in force, invading it? Is it that He is not strong enough? Well, Christians think He is going to land in force; we do not know when. But we can guess why He is delaying. He wants to give us the chance of joining His side freely. I don not suppose you and I would have thought much of a Frenchman who waited till the Allies were marching into Germany and then announce the was on our side. God will invade. But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realize what it will be like when He does. When that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author walks on to the stage the play is over. God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying your are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else - something it never entered your head to conceive - comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left? For this time it will be God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature. It will be too late then to choose your side. There is no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible to stand up. That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realized it or not. Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last for ever. We must take it or leave it.

Now I'd like to offer a disclaimer of sorts. I'm not formally trained to expound on the Word of God and I don't believe it's something that one should undertake lightly. I can only offer what seems to me to be the truth of the matter as I perceive it from reading of His Word. Therefore, I pray that either because of me or in spite of me, the Word of God would be faithfully proclaimed here.

I'll start with some general thoughts and attempt to narrow it down to the specific:

Act iv. 12
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

I Timothy ii. 5-6
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Given these two passages (of which there are many more with a similar message) one could argue that the work of Christ has made it possible for all to have salvation. No matter what one does or what kind of life they lead, they have received a "get out of jail" card and are headed to heaven because Jesus has made it possible through his saving work on the cross.

While I personally know people who believe this, I don't because there is more to the story:

I Corinthians viii. 3
3 But if any man love God, the same is known of Him.

James i. 12
12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord had promised to them that love Him.

And of course:

John iii. 16-18
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

While the work of Jesus made reconciliation with God a possibility it appears to be contingent on us believing in Him and, consequently loving Him. How does someone love God without a personal relationship with Him? And is a personal relationship actually required?

Matthew vii. 21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

This seems to be telling us that the main, if not only criteria for salvation, is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. While it appears in verse 22 that many will know Him, or perhaps more accurately, know of Him and even be able to perform "wonderful works", Jesus didn't know them possibly because there was no personal relationship with Him. An interesting observation is that if this is the case, then the works of those outside of a personal realationship with Jesus, no matter how wonderful they may appear to be, will be considered works of iniquity.

The only other group of people to be considered are, perhaps, those poor souls who have never heard of the gospel of salvation through Jesus. Here, they are referred to as "the Gentiles":

Romans ii. 12-16
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

If it is true that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans iii. 23, then His judgment will be just and we must simply accept that. Perhaps this explains the reason for the great proclamation to preach the gospel to the world, so that those that hear it might be saved.

Finally, we read:

Matthew vii. 13-14
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

There simply doesn't appear to be any other way to salvation. While God desires that all be saved, it doesn't appear that all will be saved. Those that deny His existence will get what they want, an eternity without Him. Those that acknowledge His existence but do nothing more, may very well suffer the same fate. Only those who 'enter the strait gate" and "narrow way" by, I believe, entering into a personal relationship with Him will see His salvation.

This brings us full-circle back to what C. S. Lewis stated above: "God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last for ever. We must take it or leave it."

The Unblinking Eye

Interesting details on the Zarqawi affair by Sean Naylor at Army Times:

In the end, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could not escape Task Force 145's "unblinking eye."

TF 145 is the latest name for the shifting collection of U.S. and British special operations units that has hunted the most wanted terrorist in Iraq for three years, and "the unblinking eye" is what its members call the fusion of intelligence and operations that allowed them to relentlessly peel away the layers of Zarqawi's al-Qaida in Iraq organization until the terror mastermind was left defenseless and almost alone.

When that moment came, at 6:15 p.m. on June 7, a hidden Delta Force reconnaissance and surveillance team from TF 145 watched as two 500-pound bombs dropped by an Air Force F-16 pulverized the safe house near Baqubah, in which Zarqawi; his spiritual advisor, Sheikh Abd Al Rahman; and four other people had taken refuge.

The house, located in a tiny farming hamlet called Hibhib, was leveled by the blast. Rahman, another man and three women are believed to have died in the strike, but Zarqawi was still breathing when Iraqi police arrived at the scene, Army Maj. Gen. Bill Caldwell said during a June 9 briefing from Baghdad. However, the terrorist leader died within moments.

Caldwell said earlier reports that a child also had been killed in the bombing were incorrect. Zarqawi's death marks a high point in the history of Joint Special Operations Command, which provides most of the units that comprise TF 145, and is a serious - perhaps fatal - blow to Zarqawi's al-Qaida in Iraq terrorist group.

But observers say it is too soon to judge the impact on the wider war in Iraq, which includes a Sunni insurgency separate from Zarqawi's group and several Shiite militias vying for power.

"Things are not going to go away now," said Vali Nasr, a Middle East expert at the Naval Postgraduate School. "But it's now not as likely that we'll see an attack on Ayatollah Sistani or Najaf," he said, referring to Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric and its holiest Shiite shrine.

The strike that killed Zarqawi was the culmination of "a very long, painstaking, deliberate exploitation of intelligence, information-gathering, human sources, electronic, signal intelligence ... over a period of time," Caldwell said.

Rahman, Zarqawi's spiritual adviser, was the key. "He was identified several weeks ago ... through military sources from somebody inside Zarqawi's network," Caldwell said. "They were able to start tracking him, monitoring his movements and establishing when he was doing his link-ups with Zarqawi."

The capture of Sheikh Ahmed al-Dabash in Baghdad's Mansour district May 29, described by U.S. Central Command as "a major financier and facilitator of terrorism in Iraq," may have been another critical breakthrough, multiple sources said.

"You follow the money - and he was the money man," said an officer familiar with special operations in Iraq.

TF 145 tracked Rahman to a safe house about five miles west of Baqubah in the tiny hamlet of Hibhib, an isolated cluster of about 300 buildings, most of them made of sub-baked mud, and surrounded by miles of farms, orchards and fields.

Hibhib, which has seen a fair amount of insurgent activity, is almost 100 percent Sunni and is home to at least three prominent families who would have gladly given sanctuary to a man like Zarqawi, said Army Maj. Kreg Schnell, former intelligence officer for 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, which spent a year in Baqubah starting in February 2004.

Zarqawi "obviously had friends in the area who gave him meals and a place to sleep," Schnell said. Indeed, U.S. intelligence had confirmed that Zarqawi would meet Rahman in Hibhib. A reconnaissance-surveillance team from Delta Force's B Squadron infiltrated the area to get "eyes on" the house, said a source in the special operations community. Sources said a Predator unmanned aerial vehicle was also overhead.

After slipping through coalition fingers on several occasions in the past three years, Zarqawi was now in the sights of U.S. forces.

It was, Caldwell said, "the first time that we ... had definitive, unquestionable information as to exactly where he was located," in a place where he could be hit "without causing collateral damage to other Iraqi civilians and personnel in the area."

Senior U.S. military leaders in Iraq discussed whether to launch a ground assault, but decided "they could not really go in on the ground without running the risk of having him escape," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters June 8 in Brussels, Belgium.

That left an airstrike as the only option. Two F-16C Fighting Falcon jets were in the air on a routine on-call mission due to last four or five hours over central Iraq when the decision was made to launch the mission, Air Force Lt. Gen. Gary North, Central Command's air component commander, told reporters in the Pentagon on June 8.

The jets carried a mixed load of laser-guided and satellite-guided bombs and LITENING targeting pods equipped with laser designators to mark targets, as well as video cameras.

Caldwell said June 9 that at the time the order was given to launch a strike on the house, one of the two F-16s was receiving fuel from an airborne tanker, so only one aircraft made the bombing run.

The pilot knew there was a high-value target in the building, North said, but he declined to say whether the pilot was told that target was Zarqawi.

North also refused to name the pilot, the unit or the base from which the mission was flown. For the past year, most F-16Cs flying over Iraq have been staged out of Balad, a sprawling Army and Air Force complex about 50 miles north of Baghdad. The Air Force typically has the equivalent of two F-16 squadrons at Balad.

Flying at "medium" altitude - at least 20,000 feet - the pilot circled the safe house, noting how it was built, setting targeting coordinates and deciding which bombs to use. The pilot set his fuses so the bombs would explode inside the house, rather than on contact with the roof, in order to collapse the structure.

At 6:15 p.m., the F-16 dropped a 500-pound laser-guided GBU-12 bomb on the house, causing a massive explosion.

Using the cameras in the LITENING pod, the pilot peered through the smoke to observe the damage and decided a second bomb was needed. About 30 seconds later, the pilot released a 500-pound GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munition that was guided by Global Positioning System satellite signals. That also hit the home, leaving the building a smoking pile of rubble.

Iraqi security forces were the first to arrive on the ground - and found Zarqawi still alive, Caldwell said. They had placed the terrorist leader on a stretcher just as U.S. troops from Multi-National Division-North rolled in.

Zarqawi tried to get off the stretcher. Troops again secured him and attempted to start medical treatment, but he died within minutes, Caldwell said.

Coalition forces took Zarqawi's body to an undisclosed secure location, where his identity was confirmed by scars and tattoos he was known to have, and by his fingerprints, Caldwell said.

TF 145 was responsible not only for gathering the intelligence that led to Zarqawi, but also for acting upon it swiftly, creating a cycle in which each set of raids yielded more intelligence, which in turn drove more raids.

Made up of a rotating set of units from Joint Special Operations Command, the task force, based at Balad, includes squadrons from the military's two "direct action" special-mission units - the Army's 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, better known as Delta Force, and the Navy's SEAL Team 6, also known as Naval Special Warfare Development Group, as well as other Army and Air Force special operations elements and a variety of intelligence organizations.

The June 7 attack culminated about six weeks of focused effort.

"We had clear-enough evidence about a month-and-a-half ago that allowed us to start [getting] down to the point where we were able to prosecute the action ... against that safe house," Caldwell said, showing a slide that listed eight men in Zarqawi's organization captured or killed between April 6 and May 31.

But judging from Central Command's own press releases, Caldwell's slide only scratches the surface of TF 145 operations in recent weeks.

On April 16, a force of SEALs and Rangers attacked an al-Qaida in Iraq safe house in Yusufiyah, 20 miles southwest of Baghdad, killing five terrorists and capturing another five. On June 2, "wanted al-Qaida terrorist" Hasayn Ali Muzabir was killed near Balad.

Between those two missions, "coalition forces," the phrase often used by Central Command to disguise the participation of TF 145, captured or killed more than 100 members of al-Qaida in Iraq. Indeed, in a prophetic remark, Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch told reporters in Baghdad on May 4 that the coalition was "zooming in" on Zarqawi.

In Iraq, U.S. special operations forces have captured former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, tracked his sons Uday and Qusay to a hide-out where they were killed, and killed Zarqawi - who, because of the perception that his terrorist organization was such a massive obstacle to peace in Iraq, had become arguably the highest-priority individual target for the U.S. in the world.

The question is whether al-Qaida in Iraq can withstand the loss of its iconic leader, who earned grudging respect from U.S. special operators for his willingness to lead from the front.

One candidate may be Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian whom Caldwell said met Zarqawi in Afghanistan in 2001 or 2002. U.S. operators have intelligence indicating al-Masri has had close contacts with Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's chief deputy.

Caldwell said al-Masri "helped establish maybe the first al-Qaida cell that existed in the Baghdad area." Analysts generally agree that although Zarqawi was the focus of heavy U.S. combat and propaganda efforts, he and his group were a relatively small facet of the Iraq insurgency and mounted a relatively small number of attacks.

Those attacks had a disproportionate effect, both in their violence and their political and sectarian aftermath, though Zarqawi's death may reduce the likelihood of his ultimate goal: igniting a massive civil war between Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority and the Shiite Muslims who control political life.

Within hours of Zarqawi's June 7 death, 17 simultaneous raids were carried out in and around Baghdad, yielding "a tremendous amount" of information and intelligence that is "presently being exploited ... for further use," Caldwell said.

Another 39 operations were conducted the night of June 8, Caldwell said. "This is a big oak tree that got shaken, so there's stuff falling all over the place," Schnell said.

The unblinking eye cannot afford to rest yet.

Laying Zarqawi to rest may not be the end of al-Qaeda in Iraq but exploiting the trove of intelligence material that was recovered from the house may be.

If It's Too Loud, You're Too Old

If you're going to bang on someone's door and threaten him maybe you should ascertain first what he's holding in his hand:

A man shot his next door neighbor Monday evening, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office reported. Under Florida law, he may never be charged. Investigators said the two had an ongoing argument over a messy yard and loud music. It came to a head when one neighbor shot the other outside his house.

Investigators say a few minutes after he arrived home, Kenneth Allen, 58, heard a banging at his front door. It was his neighbor, Jason Rosenbloom, 30. A verbal confrontation followed. "During the exchange, Allen told Rosenbloom to leave his property," said Mac McMullen, spokesman for the Sheriff's Office.

"Allen then shut the front door. Allen told deputies he then went to a room and retrieved a 9mm semi-automatic handgun, returned to the front door and opened the door."

"Rosenbloom then came towards Allen in what Allen told deputies was a threatening manner," he said. "Allen then told deputies he fired two rounds at Rosenbloom as he began to enter his residence." According to Allen, Rosenbloom fell to the ground after being shot, then got up and walked to his home. His wife called 911 to report the shooting.

Rosenbloom was taken to Bayfront Medical Center by air ambulance and was reported in stable condition. Allen was not charged with the shooting, McMullen said. Investigators will file their report with the State Attorney's Office for review. Under Florida law, a person cannot be charged with shooting another if he thought his life was in danger.

I wonder if Mr. Rosenbloom will henceforth keep the volume turned down.

Where's the Beef?

So why are these guys still being put through this ordeal:

The second dancer in the Duke lacrosse case told police early on that allegations of rape were a "crock" and that she was with the accuser the entire evening except for a period of less than five minutes. The second dancer, Kim Roberts, made that statement when she was first contacted by Durham police one week after the party where the first escort service dancer said she was gang raped by three men.

Roberts' statements and notes of the detectives in the case were made public today in a court filing by lawyers for one of the defendants, Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Falls, N.J. Seligmann's lawyers said police omitted important facts contradicting the accuser's story when they obtained an order to photograph and take DNA samples from the players, including Roberts' statements to police.

Investigator Benjamin Himan first contacted Roberts on March 20, one week after the lacrosse party that ended in the early hours of March 14. "She heard that (the accuser) was sexually assaulted, which she stated is a 'crock' and she stated that she was with her the whole time until she left," according to Himan's notes. "The only time she was alone was when she would not leave and that time period was less than five minutes."

Now there is this development:

The exotic dancer who has accused three Duke lacrosse players of gang-raping her was drinking while taking medication that night, and had sex with at least four men and a sexual device in the days immediately leading up to the off-campus party, according to court papers filed Thursday.

And despite what Durham police have contended, a medical examination showed no signs of the sort of sexual or physical attack of which the dancer complained, according to the motion filed by defense attorneys for Reade Seligmann.

Among other previously undisclosed details, the motion says the woman at one point accused her female dance partner of helping the lacrosse players rape her and of stealing her money. And she told one medical staffer she drank at least 44 ounces of beer, and told another she took a powerful muscle relaxant and drank beer before going to the party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. on March 13.

Lawyers Kirk Osborn and Ernest Conner contend in the motion that police Investigator Benjamin Himan and the Police Department illegally and deliberately withheld those and other details that were damaging to their investigation.

For example, they say, Himan knew but did not mention in a probable-cause affidavit that two examining physicians said the dancer complained only of vaginal rape, even though some charges in the case are linked to allegations of oral and anal penetration.

Himan also neglected to note that the accuser told one doctor she was not hit and did not complain of any pain, or that she told the sexual assault nurse examiner she was not choked, according to the documents. That conflicts with statements from police that the woman was kicked, strangled and beaten while being sexually assaulted.

Police officials wouldn't respond Thursday to questions about the documents. "The Durham Police Department is not commenting on any specifics of the Duke lacrosse case," said police spokeswoman Kammie Michael.

The defense lawyers say the omitted information is critical to the case. Had it been included, they contend, police may not have gotten permission to perform a photo lineup that led to charges against three team members. As a result, the lineup and any identifications obtained from it should be thrown out, Osborn and Conner argued.

The paperwork filed Thursday includes lengthy, handwritten statements from the second dancer and from the alleged victim's "driver," along with insights into the accuser's medical condition on the night in question. Among numerous revelations, the documents say the alleged victim performed with a vibrator for other spectators before going to the North Buchanan Boulevard house late on March 13.

Defense lawyers said the vibrator, rather than a rape, might have caused "signs or symptoms of vaginal penetration."

In addition, the dancer told her driver she was "involved in some sexual manner with at least four different men" between March 10 and 12, and she admitted to a physician the next day that "she was drunk and had had a lot of alcohol that night," according to the documents.

The accuser's medical records were among nearly 1,300 pages of documentation defense lawyers got last month from District Attorney Mike Nifong.

In other words the prosecutor has had this information all along and still chose to bring charges against these young men. Every time we hear more about this story it seems that the District Attorney has no case and that he and the usual assortment of race hustlers are just using these guys as pawns in a powerplay to advance his political ambitions and their standing in the black community. The accused are rich, white males and the alleged victim was a poor, black female, and that happy juxtaposition gives the DA a golden opportunity to pick up some votes among the leftists on Duke's campus and among resentful blacks in Durham. All he has to do to secure those votes is publically crucify these young men and destroy their lives. For people with political ambitions that's not much to ask.

It really is hard to say who the biggest sleazes are in this sordid tale: the woman, who is obviously a moral and psychological basket case; the athletes, who sound themselves like moral and emotional midgets; the police, who seem to have compromised and corrupted their ethical and professional responsibilities; or District Attorney Nifong, who gets our vote for "biggest slug" in the case since he is willing to destroy lives and imprison people when there is no evidence that they did anything illegal, just so he can elevate his standing among a political constituency.

Unless Nifong has some secret blockbuster videotape of the alleged assault occuring, he deserves to be politically ruined and sued for defamation. Even if he has such a tape he deserves the same fate since it's incumbent upon him to disclose to the defense all the evidence he has against the athletes and he hasn't.

Be Careful What Your Kids Watch

The Motion Picture Association of America uses its rating system to warn parents that some of the content in a given movie may be sleazy, violent, vulgar, pornographic, or worse ....Christian:

The Christian moviemakers behind a low-budget film called "Facing the Giants" were stunned when the MPAA pinned a PG rating on their gentle movie about a burned-out, depressed football coach whose life, on and off the field, takes a miraculous turn for the better. "What the MPAA said is that the movie contained strong 'thematic elements' that might disturb some parents," said Kris Fuhr, vice president for marketing at Provident Films... Provident plans to open the film next fall in 380 theaters nationwide...

Which "thematic elements" earned this squeaky-clean movie its PG?

"Facing the Giants" is too evangelistic.

The MPAA, noted Fuhr, tends to offer cryptic explanations for its ratings. In this case, she was told that it "decided that the movie was heavily laden with messages from one religion and that this might offend people from other religions.

"It is kind of interesting that faith has joined that list of deadly sins that the MPAA board wants to warn parents to worry about."

Overt Christian messages are woven throughout "Facing the Giants," which isn't surprising since the film was co-written and co-produced by brothers Alex and Stephen Kendrick, who are the "associate pastors of media" at Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga.

"Facing the Giants" cost $100,000 and resembles a fusion of the Book of Job and a homemade "Hoosiers," or perhaps a small- school "Friday Night Lights" blended with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association movies that used to appear in some mainstream theaters. Sherwood Pictures used local volunteers as actors and extras, backed by a small crew of tech professionals.

The movie includes waves of answered prayers, a medical miracle, a mysterious silver-haired mystic who delivers a message from God and a bench-warmer who kicks a 51-yard field goal to win the big game when his handicapped father pulls himself out of a wheelchair and stands under the goal post to inspire his son's faith. There's a prayer-driven gust of wind in there, too.

But the scene that caught the MPAA's attention may have been the chat between football coach Grant Taylor _ played by Alex Kendrick _ and a rich brat named Matt Prader. The coach says that he needs to stop bad-mouthing his bossy father and get right with God.

The boy replies: "You really believe in all that honoring God and following Jesus stuff? Well, I ain't trying to be disrespectful, but not everybody believes in that."

The coach replies: "Matt, nobody's forcing anything on you. Following Jesus Christ is the decision that you're going to have to make for yourself. You may not want to accept it, because it'll change your life. You'll never be the same."

That kind of talk may be too blunt for some moviegoers, said Kendrick, but that's the way real people actually talk in Christian high schools in Georgia. Sherwood Baptist isn't going to apologize for making the kinds of movies that it wants to make.

"Look, I have those kinds of conversations about faith all the time and I've seen young people make decisions that change their lives," he said. "The reason we're making movies in the first place is that we hope they inspire people to think twice about their relationships with God.

"So we're going to tell the stories that we believe God wants us to tell. We have nothing to hide."

We don't think the MPAA has gone far enough, actually. We've always thought that movies have become too explicit for kids, and now something like this comes along to confirm our fears. What if impressionable young people watch this and actually get the idea that God can change their lives? What if a movie like this motivates some kid to join a church or throw away his Marilyn Manson albums? Look, sex and violence are inappropriate for little children, maybe, but at least they're not religion. We say it's time the film industry cleaned up its act. We think that if this movie encourages wholesome living and following Christ then it should be given an R-rating so that parents will know how dangerous it really is.