Responding to a Friend's Challenge

A deistic friend recently sent me an essay by a religious skeptic by the name of Samuel Harris and asked me to respond to this paragraph from his piece:

Most people believe that the Creator of the universe wrote (or dictated) one of their books. Unfortunately, there are many books that pretend to divine authorship, and each makes incompatible claims about how we all must live. Despite the ecumenical efforts of many well-intentioned people, these irreconcilable religious commitments still inspire an appalling amount of human conflict.

My friend went on to ask:

...where is the proof that a "personal Creator" exists? Where is the proof that one or all of the various "holy books" is true? I believe in a Creator, but I see no evidence that He/She/It has communicated with man, other than through the creation itself.

The following is my response to his questions (slightly modified):

You asked if I would respond to Harris' opening statement, and I will, but I think it would be best if I tried to reply to your other questions first.

You ask for proof that there is a personal creator, but as you know, outside of mathematics and logic there really is very little, if anything, that we can actually prove. Everything we believe is based on factors other than proof - the force of induction, intuition, how well something fits with other well-established beliefs, and so on.

I don't know for sure what I base my belief in a personal creator upon, but one argument for that belief is this:

I exist. I have consciousness, intelligence, and am a complex arrangement of integrated systems that display astonishing engineering. I also am contingent (i.e. dependent upon something else for my existence), and possess the attributes of personality.

I ask myself how I can account for the existence of such an entity, and I find I have essentially two alternatives: Either I am the product of blind, unguided, unintelligent, impersonal forces that produced me purely by accident, a possibility which I find highly implausible, or I am the intentional product of an intelligent, purposeful being which is also conscious, self-aware and which is ultimately non-contingent. Moreover, since I possess the attributes of personality, it seems reasonable to impute some kind of personality to that which has produced that quality in me as well. In other words, whatever caused me, it's reasonable to assume, probably possesses the same qualities in Itself that It created.

But this is not a proof, of course. It may be that I really am just the product of time, chance and the impersonal, but I think it's intellectually justifiable to believe that I am not. I think it reasonable to believe that the ultimate cause of me and you and the universe as a whole is purposeful, extraordinarily intelligent and powerful, non-contingent, and conscious of, and concerned about, It's creation. It's reasonable to believe, in short, that the ultimate cause of human beings is personal.

I freely admit that I want there to be such a Being because, among other reasons, the existential consequences of such a Being not existing are severe: Indeed, our existence would have no real meaning, there would be no basis for morality, there'd be no hope for justice, and man would have no special worth, dignity or rights, to name a few of the consequences of there being no personal Creator. In other words, if I am wrong about the existence of the kind of Being I'm describing, then the logical endpoint is nihilism and despair.

Since I want very much for there to be such a Being (let's call It God for the sake of discussion), and since the existence of God seems to me to be highly probable for the reasons I discussed above, I find myself accepting, or believing, or hoping, that God does, in fact, exist. I find myself living my life more or less in accord with that hope. Someone else might come to a different conclusion, and I don't think I could argue him out of it. I would just ask him whether deep down he wants, or doesn't want, there to be a God. If he does want God to exist but finds himself unable to believe that He does, then I would suggest to him that there's really no reason not to believe and ample reason to believe. If his answer is that he doesn't really want there to be a God, which for skeptics, it often is, then there's nothing more that I can say except to ask him why he's not a nihilist.

Now, none of this gets at the question of special revelation and religious conflict that Harris poses in his essay. Let me keep my promise and respond to what he says in the passage you quote above. I agree with everything in it. What he asserts is true, but his implied conclusion that all religions are bogus doesn't follow from what he says any more than the fact that different political ideologies have caused horrible conflict in the world (much worse in the 20th century than religion ever caused) leads to the conclusion that they're all wrong. You and I both agree, I think, that a system that promotes freedom, democracy, property rights, and free markets is far superior to, say, communism, socialism, or fascism. The fact that these ideologies conflict with democratic capitalism doesn't mean we should not believe in freedom.

The question for me, then, is do I have sufficient warrant to believe that Christianity is essentially true? In order to answer that question I have to ask whether I have sufficient reason to think that the Bible is basically correct in what it says, and in order to answer that question, I have to come to grips with one of the two most fundamental stumbling blocks for many moderns when they read the Bible - miracles (the other being the deity of Christ). One miracle in particular is crucial - the resurrection of Jesus.

So, setting aside all the claims of skeptics about this or that error in the Bible, and the counterclaims that defenders throw into the breach, perhaps we can agree that the only thing that really matters is whether Jesus actually and literally rose from the dead. If he did then all the arguments raised against the historical facticity of the Old Testament and the objections to stories like the virgin birth, are irrelevant. If Jesus really rose from the dead then Christianity is, in almost every respect that matters, highly credible.

Of course, we can't know with certainty that Jesus rose from the dead or that he did not. Some skeptics counter that we can indeed know that he did not because miracles are impossible, but this is a weak argument. Miracles can only be impossible if there is no chance that the laws of nature could be superceded. But we can only have confidence that the laws of nature cannot be superceded if we know that there is no God. If the existence of the kind of Being I've talked about above is possible then so must miracles be possible, and, of course, the existence of God is certainly possible.

Thus we have to look at the evidence for the resurrection to determine whether it is a credible event or not. I do this here(scroll down to VI) and invite you to read what I've written there.

It seems to me that, as fantastic as the story sounds to the modern ear, if there is a personal God who cares about His creation and loves His creatures then what the gospels record is certainly possible and to me, at least, plausible. I understand that it won't seem so to others, but I can find no reason based upon human rationality for discounting it other than an a priori belief that miracles are impossible, which, as I've argued, is only the case if atheism is true. Even a deist such as yourself believes that God performed at least one miracle when He created the universe.

Anyway, I'm sorry if this is a little long-winded, but I thought your question deserved more than just a cursory answer.

Great Cloud of Witnesses

I just finished a challenging and inspirational book, Great Cloud of Witnesses by E.W. Bullinger. It is a compilation of expositional and devotional lessons based on the spiritual giants of faith from Hebrews chapter 11.

From the back cover: "Here you will come to understand faith's worship of God, faith's walk with God, faith's witness for God, faith's obedience, faith overcoming the will of the flesh and the will of man, faith waiting, faith overcoming fear, faith conquering through Christ, and faith suffering for God."

Here are a couple of passages from Great Cloud of Witnesses that contrast Abraham's "walk by faith" to the "walk by sight" of others.

"And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. (And the Canaanite was then in the Land.)" (Gen. xii 6)

Here, then, we have the second exhibition of Abraham's faith. First, he obeyed and went forth. Next, he sojourned. This sojourning was "by faith." It certainly could not have been "by sight;" for there was nothing for sight but the Canaanite!

What an opportunity for faith! Faith took his eye off from the Canaanite to "the God of glory" who had appeared unto him in the land of Chaldea; and who appeared again to him as Jehovah in the land of the Canaanite.

The sphere of the stranger is the sphere of Divine communications. The statement that "The Canaanite was then in the land" (v. 6) is intended to connect that fact with the subject of God's revelation in v. 7. "Unto thee will I give this land." Here was scope for faith. It came "from hearing the word of God," and our attention is directed to this fact by the close connection of these two statements.

Abraham's faith rested on the Word of God; and his thoughts were occupied with the presence of Jehovah, instead of with the presence of the Canaanite. The eye of faith could see Him who is invisible; hence, it saw not the Canaanite who was "then in the land."

How opposite was the case of the spies, who, in a later day went up into this very land with the assurance of Jehovah that it was "a good land."

They "believed not." Hence, they saw only the Canaanites; and they said: "the people that WE SAW in it are men of great stature. And there WE SAW the giants and the sons of Anak which come of the giants; and we were in OUR OWN SIGHT as grasshoppers, as so we were in THEIR SIGHT." (Num xiii. 32, 33).

Truly they walked by sight, hence they believed not, And, because they believed not, they could neither enjoy the presence of the Lord, nor enter into His rest.

Numbers chapter 14 tells us the rest of the story and that upon hearing the people crying out to go back to Egypt, Moses and Aaron fell on their faces. Joshua and Caleb who had gone with the others to search out the land rent there own cloths and said "The land, which we passed through to search it, is an exceeding good land. If the Lord delight in us, then He will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey. Only rebel not ye against the Lord neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us*: defence is departed from them, and the Lord is with us: fear them not." But all the congregation bade stone them with stones.

As you probably know, by now the Lord had had enough of the peoples' antics and was going to "smite them with pestilence, and disinherit them" but Moses appealed to the Lord that He show mercy to the people, the result being that they wandered in the wilderness for forty years and that entire adult generation eventually died (or as it is rendered in the KJV, "your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness") before the people finally entered into the land.

* manna, when out of the shade melted, though hard. Likewise the hearts of their enemies would melt away, not having Jehovah for their shadow, or defense.

The second passage contrasts Abraham's "walk by faith" with that of Lot...

Lot "walked by sight" and not "by faith." Hence, "Lot LIFTED UP HIS EYES and BEHELD all the plain of Jordan that it was well watered everywhere before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord" (Gen. xiii. 10).

It looked like "the garden of the Lord," even as Satan may look like "an angel of light" and his ministers may look like "ministers of righteousness" (2 Cor. xi. 14, 15). But it is not "righteousness," nor is it "light." Nor was it "the garden of the Lord," but it was the plain and "city" of Sodom, and the end of each will be destruction with fire and brimstone from heaven.

Notice the steps in a walk by sight when Lot "lifted up HIS OWN eyes" (Gen. xiii.)

1. He beheld (v. 10)
2. He chose the plain of Jordan (v. 11)
3. He took the eastward position and journeyed east (v. 11)
4. He dwelled in the cities of the plain (v. 12)
5. He pitched his tent toward Sodom (v. 12)
6. He dwelt in Sodom (ch. xiv. 12)
7. He sat in the gate (as a Ruler in, and citizen of Sodom) (ch. xix.1)
8. He shared in its calamities (ch. xiv. 12)
9. He was miraculously delivered from its destruction (Gen. xix. 16)

This is the end of a "Walk by Sight."

On the other hand, Abraham who sojourned by faith did not lift up his own eyes; but "Jehovah said unto Abram (after Lot was separated from him) LIFT UP NOW THINE EYES, and look from the place where thou art Northward, and Southward, and Eastward, and Westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I GIVE it, and to they seed for ever" (Gen. xiii. 14-16)

Lot made his own choice. Jehovah made choice for Abraham; and Abraham enjoyed it as God's gift.

Lot's choice was only for a short time. It began in calamity and ended in destruction.

Abraham's gift was "for ever." It began in faith, and will end in glory.

You'll want to read this book...more than once.

The Hazards of Being Al-Qaeda

Der Spiegel has an interesting article on the growing conflict between Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda forces in Iraq. It appears that the head-cutters have worn out their welcome and they find themselves having to fight not only the Americans but also a substantial number of hostile Sunni Iraqis.

Too bad.

The article is filled with interesting anecdotes. Give it a look.

Kudos

Kudos to Senators Mikulski and DeMint for their letter to Secretary of State Rice on behalf of Robert Stethem:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) and Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) today urged Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to take immediate action and formally request that the Government of Lebanon arrest and extradite convicted killer Mohammed Ali Hamadi to the United States. Hamadi was serving a life sentence in Germany for the 1985 hijacking of a TWA jetliner and killing of U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem, 23, of Waldorf, Md. He was paroled after 19 years in December 2005, and is known to be hiding in Lebanon.

TWA flight 847 from Athens, Greece, to Rome was hijacked to Beirut, Lebanon, where hijackers beat, shot and killed Petty Officer Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac. He was the only casualty during the hijacking ordeal, in which 39 Americans were held hostage for 17 days.

To read the text of their letter go to Michael Yon's site linked above.

Is ID Really Not Science?

Philosopher of science professor Bradley Monton of the University of Kentucky has written an excellent analysis of Judge Jones' (the presiding judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover) argument that Intelligent Design is not science. Monton, it's important to note, is not an advocate of ID, but he thinks that the Judge was simply wrong to conclude the following:

...ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

Monton analyzes each of these criteria and shows that each is philosophically unsustainable. Anyone interested in the ID-isn't-science-and-therefore-shouldn't-be-taught-in-public-schools argument should read Monton's piece. One of the many interesting passages is this one where he quotes a scientist named Mark Perakh who opposes ID:

[P]hysicist Mark Perakh, in his anti-ID book Unintelligent Design, writes: a definition of science should not put any limits on legitimate subjects for the scientific exploration of the world. Indeed, although science has so far had no need to attribute any observed phenomena to a supernatural cause, and in doing so has achieved staggering successes, there still remain unanswered many fundamental questions about nature. Until such answers are found, nothing should be prohibited as a legitimate subject of science, and excluding the supernatural out of hand serves no useful purpose.

Those who exulted in Judge Jones' opinion on the unscientific status of ID are simply unaware of the depth of the controversy over this question among philosophers and scientists. Monton concludes his paper with these words:

I maintain that science is better off without being shackled by methodological naturalism. Our successful scientific theories are naturalistic simply because this is the way the evidence points; this leaves open the possibility that, on the basis of new evidence, there could be supernatural scientific theories. I conclude that ID should not be dismissed on the grounds that it is unscientific; ID should be dismissed on the grounds that the empirical evidence for its claims just isn't there.

Of course, this last assertion actually presents a problem for the anti-IDers. The reason they want ID ruled out of bounds is precisely because they know that if people are "permitted" to think that ID is science they will find the evidence for design in the cosmos and in life, pace Monton, extremely compelling, at least intuitively. Better to discredit ID a priori by declaring it non-science and short-circuit the desire on the part of interested lay-people to examine the sorts of systems ID proponents say constitute evidence for an intelligent architect of the universe. Philosophers like Monton who place a higher premium on truth than on any particular metaphysical dogma will make it increasing difficult for the anti-IDers to succeed with that strategy in the years ahead.

Another One Bites the Dust (Maybe)

ABC News has a report that Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant may be, even as you read this, cavorting with his 72 virgins in Allah's retirement home for blown-to-smithereens jihadis:

Jan. 13, 2006 - Today, according to Pakistani military sources, U.S. aircraft attacked a compound known to be frequented by high level al Qaeda operatives. Pakistani officials tell ABC News that al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, may have been among them.

U.S. intelligence for the last few days indicated that Zawahiri might be in the location or about to arrive, although there is still no confirmation from U.S. officials that he was among the victims.

The attack took place early this morning Pakistan time in a small village a few miles from the border with Afghanistan. Villagers described seeing an unmanned plane circling the area for the last few days and then bombs falling in the early morning darkness.

Eighteen people were killed, according to the villagers who said women and children were among the fatalities. But Pakistani officials tell ABC News that five of those killed were high-level al Qaeda figures, and their bodies are now undergoing forensic tests for positive identification.

Officials say Zawahiri was known to have used safe houses in this area last winter and was believed to be in the area again this winter. Zawahiri, who appeared just last week in a new videotaped message, had increasingly been taking the operational reins of al Qaeda, and is thought by U.S. officials to be the current true mastermind of the terrorist group.

Pakistani officials tell ABC News that the bodies of the five suspected al Qaeda figures will be recovered at first light in Pakistan, but it will still take a day or two for any kind of positive identification. U.S. officials in Washington did not comment.

It's getting harder and harder for Osama to retain good help, a fact we take some satisfaction in and encouragement from. We hope that al-Zawahiri does indeed turn out to be part of the debris that investigators have to sift through, and we hope that his last mortal act of conscious awareness was the sight of that missile speeding through his window straight toward his wide-eyed, astonished self.

Just Plain Dumb

One wonders what goes through the minds of some teachers. How could anyone who works with kids be so morally tone-deaf as to not realize the stupidity of an assignment like this?

A high school research assignment on Internet pornography was canceled after parents in this Cleveland suburb complained.

Superintendent Jeff Lampert said that although the teacher's apparent goal _ to discuss the harmful effects of pornography _ was well- intentioned, he agreed with parents that the assignment was inappropriate for 14- and 15-year-old freshmen at Brooklyn High.

The assignment asked students to research pornography on the Internet and list eight facts about pornography. Students also were asked to write their personal views of pornography and any experience they had with it.

Lampert said he doubted the teacher would face any punishment.

Perhaps the teacher should be made to sit in the corner wearing a dunce cap for a couple of hours.

Pandas

Throughout the Dover ID case the book Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins by Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon came in for a lot of criticism. Not having read it we're in no position to comment on the validity of the allegations made against it, but for those who are interested in whether Pandas is as bad as alleged this site offers a vigorous defense of the text and reveals Judge Jones' bias in his evaluation of it.

The Democrats' Worst Nightmare

The Washington Post says that Alito will be confirmed, the Democrats being unable to seriously wound him. Indeed, if anything, the category five windbags on the Senate Judiciary Committee managed only to shoot themselves in their own posteriors with their unconscionable attempts to smear a fine man and an outstanding jurist:

Samuel A. Alito Jr., an appellate judge who could shift the Supreme Court significantly to the right, appeared headed for the high court yesterday after completing three days of interrogation without a serious misstep.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee made a final stab at challenging Alito on presidential powers, the death penalty and other matters. But their efforts sometimes seemed halfhearted, and even the most liberal advocacy groups acknowledged privately that they saw slim hopes of preventing his confirmation later this month in the full Senate, where Republicans hold 55 of the 100 seats.

President Bush called Alito from Air Force One "to congratulate him for doing a great job during the hearings," the White House said. Committee member John Cornyn (R-Tex.) predicted the nominee "will be confirmed," adding that "the unfounded attacks on Judge Alito had about as much traction as bald tires on an icy road."

When the hearings began Monday, liberal activists said their best hope was for Alito to commit a gaffe or lose his composure. When his 18 hours of testimony ended at lunchtime yesterday, and Republican senators scurried to shake his hand, both sides agreed he had done neither.

The committee could vote as early as Tuesday on whether to recommend Alito, 55, to the full Senate. All 10 Republicans on the panel appear virtually certain to support him, while several senators predicted all eight Democrats will oppose him.

The Post article goes on to predict that Alito will get 60 to 70 votes on the floor of the full Senate. He needs fifty to be confirmed.

And now for the Democrats' worst nightmare: Justice John Paul Stevens is 85 and Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 72. Either, or both, of them may retire soon and Bush might get to make at least one, and possibly two, more appointments to the Supreme Court in the three years he has left in his presidency. It will drive the liberals to despair to contemplate this, but there are a lot more judges of the quality of John Roberts and Sam Alito on his depth chart. Let's just hope that he's scratched off any more Harriet Meirs-type aberrations from that chart.

Good Teachers

George Will rightly blasts contemporary teacher training in this Newsweek column. Will writes in part:

Many education schools discourage, even disqualify, prospective teachers who lack the correct "disposition," meaning those who do not embrace today's "progressive" political catechism. Karen Siegfried had a 3.75 grade-point average at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, but after voicing conservative views, she was told by her education professors that she lacked the "professional disposition" teachers need. She is now studying to be an aviation technician.

In 2002 the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education declared that a "professional disposition" is "guided by beliefs and attitudes related to values such as caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social justice." Regarding that last, the Chronicle reports that the University of Alabama's College of Education proclaims itself "committed to preparing individuals to"-what? "Read, write and reason"? No, "to promote social justice, to be change agents, and to recognize individual and institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia, and classism," and to "break silences" about those things and "develop anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-sexist community [sic] and alliances."

Brooklyn College, where a professor of education required her class on Language Literacy in Secondary Education to watch "Fahrenheit 9/11" before the 2004 election, says it educates teacher candidates about, among many other evils, "heterosexism." The University of Alaska Fairbanks, fluent with today's progressive patois, says that, given America's "caste-like system," teachers must be taught "how racial and cultural 'others' negotiate American school systems, and how they perform their identities." Got it?

Such schools are a joke, of course, or would be if the consequences of their politically correct fecklessness weren't so serious, but even so, even among sensible people much of the discussion about what makes a good teacher misses the point.

We tend to think that the problem with teachers is that they just don't know enough, but based upon 35 years of observing my colleagues in a public high school I submit that knowledge is only one aspect of what it takes to be a good teacher. Perhaps it should go without saying that the ability to promote social justice, to be change agents, and to recognize individual and institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia, and classism," and to "break silences" about those things and "develop anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-sexist community [sic] and alliances are not even on the list.

Here are the five most crucial attributes of quality teachers, listed in what I believe to be their order of importance:

1. Character: A teacher is a role model whether he/she wants to be or not. If a prospective teacher doesn't want to be a role model then that individual should seek out another career. The teacher needs to present an image to students of what a good man or woman should be. He or she must be someone any parent would want his or her child to emulate. This means, among other things, that they should be exemplary in their personal lives, have an outstanding work ethic, and strive for fairness and kindness in the classroom.

2. Desire: A quality teacher must have a strong motivation to do the best job he or she possibly can. Teachers must demonstrably love kids and enjoy being around them and they must be willing to do much more for students than what their contract obligates them to do. Teachers who are in and out with the bell send the message that they don't really enjoy what they're doing and that message detracts from their performance in the classroom in a host of subtle ways.

3. Personality: To be effective a teacher has to have a personality that students find appealing. A teacher need not, and, in fact, should not, seek to be the students' "friend," but should rather be the sort of person that students enjoy spending time with in class.

4. Discipline: A teacher who cannot maintain a good learning environment in his or her classroom is not going to be effective. All the character, desire, and personality in the world do not help a teacher teach if the classroom is in chaos.

5. Knowledge: Contrary to conventional wisdom, teachers need not come to the job with a lot of expertise, but to be a quality teacher he/she must be willing, indeed eager, to learn as much as possible, not just about the subject matter entrusted to them to convey, but about all sorts of things, just for the sake of learning them. The best teachers communicate a love of learning to their students, it enriches their classrooms and their students, and students will absorb much more if they perceive the teacher to truly love the material he's teaching. Students will be more likely to be infected themselves with a desire to learn because they sit in a classroom where knowledge and understanding are prized and where a contagious love of learning is pervasive.

The best teachers I have known excelled in each of these characteristics, and a young man or young woman who lacks any of these is going to be less effective as a teacher than he or she might otherwise be. The good news, however, is that all of these qualities, even #3, can be nurtured, developed, and improved as long as the will to do so is present.

The Fight For Naturalism

The Darwinist totalitarians are busily at work in California. A week or so ago we noted that the Left is never content to win the battle they say they want to win. Rather, each victory leads them to on to another fight to change the culture. So it is in Bakersfield where a school district took the oponents of Intelligent Design at their word when they said that ID is appropriate for a social studies or philosophy class but not a science class.

The administrators at Frazier Mountain High School decided to offer an elective philosophy course that would compare various theories of origins including, but not limited to, ID and naturalistic evolution.

Despite the fact that the course is a philosophy course and is an elective The Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have threatened the district with litigation if they don't yank it. See here for the story.

It should be becoming clear to average Americans that the fight against ID is not merely a battle to maintain the purity of science, as if such a thing existed, rather it is a battle to determine which metaphysical worldview is going to dominate our culture, including our schools: naturalistic materialism or some form of non-naturalism.

The naturalists are desperate that our young people not be informed that there are alternatives to naturalism, and thus ID must be kept out of our schools at all costs. Whether it is seen as a scientific or philosophical alternative or a sociological phenomenon doesn't matter. Students must not be allowed to think that there is any alternative to naturalism.

The day is not far off, we predict, when it will be seriously proposed that anyone with strong religious convictions be prohibited from teaching biology for fear that their convictions will spill over into his classroom instruction and taint his teaching. The day is even closer when any teacher with strong convictions will be prima facie disqualified from proposing an elective which examines naturalistic explanations of anything because the assumption will be that the teacher must have a religious motive for wanting to teach such a course.

Of course, no one should try to deny the truth of this because, for deeply devout persons, their religion colors and influences everything they do. Their whole life is informed by their devotion to God, so they have religious motives for everything they do. If they wish to teach a course that may touch upon the naturalism vs. non-naturalism controversy, then, it will be rightly argued, there must be at least a partial religious impetus behind their proposal, and therefore they must be refused.

Despite the fact that the premises of this argument are true, the conclusion would be grossly unjust for at least two reasons.

One is that similar restraints will not apply to the teacher who embraces naturalism. That teacher will be allowed to offer whatever course he/she wants because the presumption, as false as any presumption can be, is that naturalism is religiously neutral.

The second is that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of his or her religion. Teachers should be allowed to teach any course for which they are qualified and should be denied that opportunity only if they demonstrate that they can't be trusted not to flout the relevant laws regarding what can and cannot be taught in a public school.

Despite the injustice and unconstitutionality of such proposals, however, we're quite confident that they will be seriously advanced in the not too distant future.

Senator Chutzpah

Senator Kennedy has been beleaguering Judge Samuel Alito over his membership in a Princeton alumni association several decades ago, some members of which expressed racist and sexist opinions in writing. It's not clear that Alito was deeply involved with the group or that he held similar opinions, but the fair-minded Senator is trying his best to establish guilt by association.

Now it turns out according to Matt Drudge that the Senator himself was a member of an all-male club which refused membership to women:

Conservative activists are eager to point out that Sen Ted Kennedy was on shaky ground accusing the Judge Alito of associating with people opposed to the inclusion of women in private institutions, the WASHINGTON TIMES is fronting on Thursday.

The eight-term senator belonged to an all-male social club -- the Owl -- at Harvard University. The Owl refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s, according to records kept by the HARVARD CRIMSON, the student newspaper.

A Kennedy spokeswoman said it was an entirely different matter.

"No one can question Senator Kennedy's commitment to equality, justice and civil rights," said Laura Capps. "What he was part of was a social club, not a radical group pushing a radical agenda."

Anyway, she said, even though women were admitted to the university during Mr. Kennedy's tenure, they weren't fully integrated to the campus until much later.

As if this rather tenuous distinction would matter were it Alito who belonged to the Owl rather than Kennedy.

We think that the attempt to discredit someone and disgrace them because of some tangential membership in a moderately questionable organization several decades ago is reprehensible, but that's all the Democrats can do to stop Alito. Besides, political assassination is a favored and important part of their skill set.

Even so, it seems that the only thing that matches Kennedy's hypocrisy is his chutzpah. Here's a man who was expelled from Harvard for cheating, a man who should be humiliated and disgraced by his responsibility for the death of a young woman in 1969, a man who at a D.C. restaurant rolled on the floor with Senator Chris Dodd, a waitress wedged betwixt them in the infamous waitress sandwich, while the Senators' dates were in the restroom. And this man nevertheless sits on a senate panel lecturing Samuel Alito on moral matters. Teddy, despite his own past associations, pillories Alito for having years ago belonged to an association, some of whose members expressed politically unfortunate sentiments not much different than those held by the organization to which Kennedy himself belonged. Why does anyone pay any attention to anything this man says?

For younger readers who may not be aware of the Senator's responsibility for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne you can read about it here. Other episodes in Kennedy's life are recorded here.

Lecture on the Dover ID Trial

Those of you who live in central Pennsylvania might be interested in this lecture:

The Department of Politics at Messiah College invites you to join us on Tuesday, January 17 from 7:00-8:30pm in Boyer 131 for "Reflections on Kitzmiller v. the Dover Area School District," a presentation by Tom Schmidt, legal counsel for the plaintiffs in the recently concluded intelligent design trial.

Tom Schmidt is attorney-in-charge of Pepper Hamilton LLP, Harrisburg. He graduated from the Dickinson School of Law in 1974--where presently he is an adjunct instructor of advocacy--and received his undergraduate degree from Boston College in 1968. His legal practice includes work in Pennsylvania's Supreme, Superior, and Commonwealth Courts. He also maintains a substantial pro bono practice and serves frequently as a court-appointed mediator in the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

It should be an interesting talk.

Right-Wing Ideologue?

Well, here's the judge's record. It certainly looks like that of a "right-wing fanatic" as Stuart Taylor lays it out in an article in National Journal:

Affirmative action. The judge has repeatedly blocked or crippled programs designed to protect blacks against the continuing effects of American apartheid. One decision, which struck down a school board's policy of considering race in layoff decisions, thwarted an effort to keep a few black teachers as role models for black students. A second blocked a similar program to shield recently hired black police officers from layoffs. A third blocked a city from opening opportunities for minority-owned construction companies by striking down its program to channel 30 percent of public works funds to them.

Voting rights. Making it harder for black and Hispanic candidates to overcome white racial-bloc voting, the judge has repeatedly struck down majority-black and majority-Hispanic voting districts because of their supposedly irregular shape. But the judge saw no problem with the gerrymandering of bizarrely shaped districts by Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled Legislature to rig elections against Democrats!

Civil rights and women's rights. Decision after decision has made it harder for victims of racial and gender discrimination to vindicate their rights. One used a narrow reading of Title IX, the federal law banning gender discrimination by federally funded schools and colleges, to block victims from suing unless the federal money went to the particular discriminatory program. A second blocked victims of racial and other discrimination from suing federally funded programs and institutions unless they can prove intent to discriminate -- often an impossible burden. A third barred victims of rape and domestic violence from suing under the federal Violence Against Women Act.

Gay rights. One decision allowed states to prosecute and brand gay people as criminals for enjoying sexual relations, even in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Another supported a homophobic group's discriminatory exclusion of gay boys and men, citing the group's "freedom of association."

Religion. The judge has often breached the wall of separation between church and state. Decisions boosting governmental subsidies for Catholic and other religious schools include one that supported "voucher" programs condemned by teachers groups and another that approved a state tax deduction for tuition paid to religious schools. Other decisions have forced public schools to open their doors to evangelical Bible clubs; forced a state university to subsidize a Christian student magazine; allowed a state legislature to pay a chaplain to open each day's session with a prayer; and supported official displays of explicitly Christian symbols, including a tax-funded Christian nativity scene as part of a city's holiday display.

States' rights -- and guns. One decision crippled enforcement of the Brady gun control law by striking down its requirement that local law enforcement officials perform background checks on handgun purchasers. A second struck down a federal law that sought to protect children by barring possession of guns in or near schools. A third immunized states from suits under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, leaving 4.7 million state employees with no remedy.

Death penalty. The judge has been relentless in pushing death-row inmates toward execution chambers -- even in the face of eye-catching evidence of possible innocence and systematic racial discrimination. One decision expedited the execution of a coal miner -- whose guilt is doubted by experts -- because his lawyer had missed a state court filing deadline by one day. Two dissents supported executions of 16-year-olds and of defendants so insane that they have no idea what they did.

Civil liberties. One decision gave a virtual blank check for government investigators to conduct aerial surveillance of citizens -- even by hovering over the fenced yards of private homes. A second upheld the forfeiture of a woman's car because her faithless husband had been parked in it while receiving oral sex from a prostitute. Two more gave presidents absolute immunity and attorneys general almost absolute immunity from lawsuits for their official acts, including the Nixon administration's illegal wiretapping of political opponents. And the judge approved a police officer's fatal shooting of an unarmed, 15-year-old black youth, in the back, because he was suspected of fleeing the scene of a minor burglary.

Choice. The judge has called abortion "morally repugnant"; declared Roe v. Wade to be "on a collision course with itself"; claimed that governments have "compelling interests in the protection of potential human life ... throughout pregnancy"; and forced terrified minors to notify often-abusive parents (or beg judges for permission) before they can obtain abortions.

Environment. Among other anti-environment decisions, the judge overturned a long-established Clean Water Act regulation that had protected ponds and many wetlands from dredging and filling by profiteering developers.

Big business. One decision supported Big Tobacco's position that it could not be regulated in any way by the federal Food and Drug Administration -- not even to prevent use of TV ads to hook children and teenagers on cigarettes. A second overturned a jury's $145 million award of punitive damages against a big insurance company that had refused in bad faith to settle a valid car-crash claim and thereby exposed a policyholder to personal liability.

No wonder liberals and moderates begged Sandra Day O'Connor to forego her retirement and stay on the bench. Trouble is, as Taylor points out, the decisions and votes listed above are not Samuel Alito's. They're Sandra Day O'Connor's.

Read the whole piece for Taylor's explanation.

The Best 100

CNNMoney.com lists the 100 best places to live in the United States. You can do a search at the site for your town or city to see where it ranks. I was surprised to note that our humble little hamlet ranks 95th in the nation. If that's true then a lot of Americans must be living in pretty grim surroundings.

Interview With P.Z. Myers

The Daily Kos recently interviewed biologist and blogger P.Z. Myers of the University of Minnesota. Myers, who has a reputation as an acidulous, no-holds-barred polemicist, says this:

Religion is a clumsy farrago of myths and wishful thinking and old traditions which is irrelevant to our understanding of reality, and in fact often impedes our understanding. We lose nothing if it goes away. As people recognize its lack of utility, something that often (but not necessarily) happens as we learn more about science, it fades away. It's like Santa Claus -- as we learned more about how the real world works and how our parents fulfill all the roles of the fat old myth, we don't mind seeing it go away.

I don't need to preach atheism -- all I need to do is point out the palpable structure of reality in the growing detail science provides for us, and those who are awake and aware will notice the disparity between the world around them and the clumsy, sterile, ludicrous fantasies of religion, and they'll eventually abandon faith.

What professor Myers in his naivete overlooks is that man can't live without faith in something. If traditional Christianity is relegated to anthropological museums something else will surely take its place. Over the last two centuries, in the West, the substitute has been naturalistic humanism. The Bolsheviks, for example, sought to eradicate Christianity from the Soviet Union and replace it with the atheistic religion of communism, a form of humanism. People like Myers wish to eliminate Christianity and replace it with scientistic humanism, or something similar.

Unfortunately, for the secularists, naturalistic religions are not adequate to the task of investing man with meaning and purpose. Unless there is a serious hope for an afterlife this life is utterly pointless. Death annihilates everything, including meaningfulness and the recognition of the abject futility of life leads men to despair and nihilism.

Moreover, unless there is a transcendent moral authority, a moral lawgiver superior to man, there is no basis whatsoever for believing that anyone ought to behave in one way rather than another. There is no right or wrong behavior, only behaviors that people prefer to others. Man can't live that way and retain his freedom. The belief that there is no basis for morality leads directly to the view that might makes right and that leads to political oppression and tyranny.

Furthermore, if we are simply a temporary collection of molecules there's no reason to think that any of us have any dignity or worth beyond what we choose to assign to ourselves and to each other. If, as professor Myers believes, we're simply flesh and bone machines, then wherein lies our dignity? And if we have no dignity as human beings then what is the basis for our human rights? Such rights are simply fictions with which we comfort ourselves but which have no objective existence.

The interviewer asked Dr. Myers what is wrong with the idea of Irreducible Complexity. He replied:

[IC uses] the same logic that would say it is impossible to build an arch, because removing one piece would cause the whole thing to tumble down. Yet arches are built every day -- bridges must be miracles! The answer, of course, is that arches are supported by a scaffold during their assembly, and similarly, "irreducibly complex" pathways were supported by duplications and redundancy during their evolution.

Poor Dr. Myers. So blinded is he by his certainty that he just couldn't be wrong about his atheism that he fails to see that his very example actually supports the conclusions of IC theorists like Michael Behe. It is true that stone arches are built all the time, or at least they were in an earlier era, and it's true that the builder employs a scaffolding to erect the structure, but the point that Myers elides is that it takes an intelligent engineer to contrive this process and to carry it out. Stone arches don't assemble themselves, nor is the scaffolding which allows for their construction assembled through purely natural processes. A bridge that was built up from the cementing together of stones without any input from an intelligent architect, as Dr. Myers says, would indeed be a miracle.

Saddam and the Terrorists

Stephen Hayes has a must read piece in the Weekly Standard for anyone who accepts the current anti-Bush line that the secularist Saddam would never have had any relationship with an Islamist terror organization and that Bush's claims that he was sponsoring and sheltering terrorists was a lie. Hayes' devastates that argument. He writes:

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials. The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units.

Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Taken together, this collection could give U.S. intelligence officials and policymakers an inside look at the activities of the former Iraqi regime in the months and years before the Iraq war.

The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator. It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years.

Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only 50,000 of these 2 million "exploitable items" have been thoroughly examined. That's 2.5 percent. Despite the hard work of the individuals assigned to the "DOCEX" project, the process is not moving quickly enough, says Michael Tanji, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who helped lead the document exploitation effort for 18 months. "At this rate," he says, "if we continue to approach DOCEX in a linear fashion, our great-grandchildren will still be sorting through this stuff."

There is much, much more at the link confirming what the administration told us prior to the war about Saddam's involvement with terrorism. Those who have been calling Bush a liar over this and other issues related to Iraq would do well to moderate their rhetoric lest they wind up completely discredited and uncredible. But, of course, they won't.

Please Get it Right, Senator

Teddy Kennedy, whose family manse at Hyannis Port, we may assume, regularly hosts soirees for poor, disenfranchised African Americans, made this claim yesterday:

In an era when America is still too divided by race and riches, Judge Alioto [sic] has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job. In fifteen years on the bench, not one.

Senator Teddy might want to present a severance check to whomever it is in his office who's doing his research for him. The Committee For Justice lists several cases where Alito did exactly what Kennedy claims he's never done. This is not an auspicious beginning for the Democratic inquisitors as they seek to make the case as to why "Alioto" should be burned at the stake.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the tip.

BDS

Add the name of Harry Belefonte to the list of people suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), an affliction brought on by an intense, irrational hatred for the president that causes the sufferer to say and do the most astonishingly stupid things:

CARACAS, Venezuela - The American singer and activist Harry Belafonte called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" on Sunday and said millions of Americans support the socialist revolution of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.

Belafonte led a delegation of Americans including the actor Danny Glover and the Princeton University scholar Cornel West that met the Venezuelan president for more than six hours late Saturday. Some in the group attended Chavez's television and radio broadcast Sunday.

"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution," Belafonte told Chavez during the broadcast.

Maybe Harry's advancing years are causing him to hallucinate, but I doubt that there are a million people in this country who can even spell Venezuela, find it on a map, and name its national leader, much less who also know about the socialist/communist revolution taking place there, and actually support it.

Wired

NewsMax reports that Duke Cunningham who resigned in disgrace because of a bribery scandal has been cooperating with the FBI in their investigation of Jack Abramoff's malfeasance.

Top Republicans in the House are buzzing - and scrambling - at news alleging that Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a former San Diego congressman who's pled guilty to bribery and other illegal activities, was wearing a wire for the FBI during the summer and early fall of 2005. The undercover operation, according to senior Justice and federal law enforcement, is part of a broadening investigation into the Jack Abramoff bribes-for-favors scandal now roiling Washington.

The disgraced former lawmaker initially began cooperating with federal investigators after they uncovered evidence of his illegal acceptance of bribes in cash and luxury items from at least two small California defense contractors. Cunningham began cooperating shortly after announcing last summer that he would not run again for Congress and before his November 28, 2005, plea agreement. Court documents reveal he admitted to accepting nearly $2 million in graft money for political favors.

The former Vietnam flying ace and war hero was later brought into the burgeoning Abramoff probe because of his position as a member of Congress with unique access to other Congressmen under scrutiny by a joint Justice Department Public Integrity investigation. "Cunningham wore a wire on the Hill during meetings with, and meetings set up with, other lawmakers Abramoff was interested in talking to or meeting," a high level federal law enforcement source said without elaborating party affiliations of the targeted lawmakers.

It could not be immediately determined whether Abramoff or others were or are part of the undercover eavesdropping operation involving Cunningham. "You can assume any private meeting Cunningham had with legislators pertaining to Abramoff were recorded," the high-level federal law enforcement source said. "It does not mean [these lawmakers] are under investigation. But some are. There will be repercussions"

"This will go up the food chain," the source added ominously, implying Cunningham's wire may have ensnared Congressional leaders. Over eighty members and congressional staff are, according to a senior Senate investigator, under scrutiny for political kickbacks, bribes, and political favors on behalf of Abramoff. The scandal is said to include lobbyists, political operatives in Washington and a number of government officials including high-level aides.

The result of whatever cooperation Cunningham provided has, according to the high-level federal law enforcement official, is that specific legislation is being closely scrutinized to find Abramoff's fingerprints on legislative action as part of his bribes-for-favors criminal activities.

The high-level federal law enforcement source implied other members of Congress are directly implicated. "Interpret as you will," the source said.

The TIME article, by former Roll Call reporter Tim Burger, says Cunningham began cooperating with federal authorities shortly after he announced in the summer that he was resigning. The magazine's online story does not provide any specifics on the alleged wire caper. Capitol Hill leaders, as far as can be determined, were unaware of Cunningham's secret spying operations, including at meetings at the Armed Services Committee, with staff and others.

There's a lot more on this story at the NewsMax link. It appears that both Republicans and Democrats are going to be implicated in this scandal and that congressional heads will be rolling fast enough to give Madame DeFarge a case of the raptures.

We say that it's all to the good. Whatever party to which the miscreants belong they should be run out of Washington in disgrace if they are truly guilty of having violated the public's trust. It'll be good riddance.