The religion of science

Score one for Vox Day:

I am not anti-science, I am pro-science reform. But the haughty language and baseless arrogance of the would-be secular priesthood has caused me to conclude that not only is there a massive difference between scientody and scientistry, but that science would be very well served by a significant culling of a scientific community that has gotten well above itself. The absurd figure of the secular scientist evangelist pontificating on matters having little or nothing to do with science proper, and making no use of either reason or scientody to do so, should be as egregiously offensive to scientists truly devoted to the scientific method as the behavior of the Borgia Pope is to devout Catholic Christians today.

Tears for Obama

Josh Harris has a deeply affecting blog on his five year old son, Barack Obama, and the most important social issue of our generation.

My five-year-old son, Joshua Quinn, has been following the presidential election with his dad. To him it’s another sport alongside football and NASCAR. Someone wins. Someone loses. He can understand that.

He has seen various candidates on TV and he’s been drawn to Barack Obama. Is it any wonder? Even for a young boy Obama’s words and demeanor are magnetic. But one day I mentioned the fact that Mr. Obama is pro-choice. Joshua Quinn had only recently been informed about the sad reality of abortion. When he learned that Mr. Obama supported abortion, he burst into tears. He was heart-broken.

Would Jesus bomb a nation?

There are very few bloggers on the internet that I respect more than Brian LePort. Always thoughtful, never caustic and many times right, Brian’s blog is required reading for anyone interested in some serious theologically cultural thinking. But I think he misses a few things in his recent post dealing with the nature of violence.

Let me first of all I say that I agree with Brian’s main thesis: Violence does beget violence. It’s pretty obvious: Just visit a group of 5 year olds to understand how contagious pushing and shoving can be. Christ taught this principle starting from the inside: That sin within the heart is the source of visible sin, or “violence.”

Where I disagree with Brian is in his line of thinking that seeks to apply these principle to republican government. This paragraph suffices:

On the other hand, whether the words of Jesus concerning the response to violence being “turn the other cheek” are pragmatic, or transferable to all cases of received violence, though debatable, must at least be recognized as a warning to those who believe that violence can somehow stop violence. It cannot.

When 9/11 took place we realized how terrible violence is. Our response? More violence in Afghanistan and Iraq (and now we talk about going further into Pakistan or into Iran). While almost three thousand people died on 9/11, over four thousand coalition soldiers have died in Iraq alone (almost four thousand of those being Americans) and we have lost an addition eight hundred (rounded off) in Afghanistan. The Iraqi death total has almost reached thirty-nine thousand (13x’s that of 9/11!).

Admittedly, the numbers are staggering. But I think his implication is off a bit.

Racism, lies, and videotape

ABC News has developed a fetish for staging examples of “Islamaphobia” across the United States. Supposedly, fake examples of racial collisions help audiences digest the reality of them (try to work that out). According to the official website (HT: Malkin)

The Sept. 11 attacks, the Iraq war and suicide bombings worldwide have changed not only the way we live but the way we look at those around us, especially Muslims. “Islamophobia” has entered the American vernacular, and the anti-Muslim attitudes and prejudice it describes remain common.

But what if you witnessed “Islamophobia” in action and saw someone being victimized because of someone else’s prejudices? What would you do?

ABC’s production crew outfitted The Czech Stop, a bustling roadside bakery north of Waco, Texas, with hidden cameras and two actors. One played a female customer wearing a traditional Muslim head scarf, or hijab. The other acted as a sales clerk who refused to serve her and spouted common anti-Muslim and anti-Arab slurs.

The polarity of reactions was shocking, from support to seething disapproval. Never did we expect customers to be so passionate or candid.

I’ve heard of candid camera stunts before, and some have merit, but this is nothing less than immoral journalism. ABC is trying to manufacture racism so people will get the impression that its all over the place. But how do we know? Wouldn’t this kind of thing be grounds of dismissal if it were in print, if straw-man “racists” were interviewed in a story about Islam in America? Hello, maybe we owe Jayson Blair an apology.

Does Muslim matter?

A blogger at Beliefnet asking a fair question: Why does it matter if Obama’s a Muslim?

Frankly, the whole thing’s pathetic. First he responded to a false email about him being Muslim by calling the rumors “scurrilous.” The email was false. Fine. But why “scurrilous?” And now this photo is a “fear-mongering” tactic. Is it such an insult to have any link with Muslims? For a man who’s all about change and hope, he’s slowly squashing any hope Muslims have for a fair shake by the government in this country, should he become president.

Go back and read that last sentence one more time. A “fair shake”? By the government?

As far as I know, Muslim votes are not discounted, neither are Muslims kept from the polls. So what does this mean?  Well, I’m not completely sure, and therein lies part of the answer to the question. We are honestly not sure what a Muslim president would try to do with the direction of this country; this is probably because American Muslims seem to be an island surrounded by depths of theocratic extremists. An objective view of our world leaves one thinking that for every peaceful, law-abiding Muslim, there are five who aren’t opposed to Sharia law or enforcing it.

I don’t know what the blogger meant by “fair shake by the government,” but I can only respond that America has been enthusiastically fair, given the deep (but not wide?) ideological disparity between American Muslims and others.

Theo-idiocy

Please, please folks: Get over yourselves. American theocracy is not going to happen. Ever.  It’s a term of no content and mostly political implication. And it’s used by everyone, not just the fear-mongering Left.  Please, an Obama theocracy?

I implore you: Let this word fall into exclusively seminarian usage. It’s not going to be Barack Obama’s secret agenda, and it’s not going to be the final accomplishment of a militant religious right. Theocracy never has and never will happen.

“No Country for Old Men”

Takes it.

Girls like jerks

Or, at least, they seem to. Why?

Here’s how the jerk spell works: we meet the jerk and in some twisted way are seduced by his confidence, charm, and passion…

As much as I hate to say it, girls love jerks…Speaking from the guy’s perspective, I’ve never quite understood what draws sane, attractive, bright women to guys who act like jerks. Maybe it is the thrill of the unexpected. Maybe it is trying to outplay him in his own game. Maybe it is hoping that deep down he is a nice guy and you are going to prove it to your naysayer friends.

My theory: Females are weary of the metro-sexualized pansies that are being produced by mass media and feminist parenting theory. So, when a jerk shows up, he rather easily passes as masculine, assertive, and powerful, simply by virtue of contrast with the aforementioned fellows. His character is egotistical but his personality is sexy.

Seems like the market is pretty ripe for real men who have real values. Sign me up.

EDIT: A surprisingly thoughtful article on real manhood from WikiHow (minus the inborn homosexuality line). More thoughtful (but not surprisingly so) words on manhood from Al Mohler: Part 1, Part 2.

How not to prevent college shootings

This just misses the point:

After the Virginia Tech murders a year ago, Yale University banned the use of stage weapons in a student theatrical production — infuriating actors and educators who believed audience members could distinguish drama from real life. After a few days of ridicule, Yale backed down.

A year later, after another gun tragedy, college officials are still trying to figure out how to make their campuses safe — and theater still is a target. A student production of Assassins, the award-winning musical, was to have premiered Thursday night at Arkansas Tech University, but the administration banned it — and permitted a final dress rehearsal Wednesday night (so the cast could experience the play on which students have worked long hours) only on the condition that wooden stage guns were cut in half prior to the event and not used. Assassins is a musical in which the characters are the historic figures who have tried to kill a U.S. president.

Robert C. Brown, Arkansas Tech’s president, issued a statement explaining the decision as follows: “All of us have a healthy respect for the freedom of artistic expression that college theater represents, and all of us agree that out of respect for the families of those victims of the tragedies at Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech, and from an abundance of caution, it is best at this time not to undertake a campus production that contains the portrayal of graphically violent scenes.”

A total missing of the real issue. Three key components go into every university (or high school) shooting: The desire of the student(s) to kill his peers, the inability of said peers to defend themselves, and the media’s insensitive infatuation with culprit face-time. I’ve written that there are real solutions to the first and third problems. The answer to the second has been suggested, and I think concealed carry is worth at least an experiment.

Here comes the feminist

Modern feminism has, in general, two stated goals: To throw off patriarchal oppression of women, and to help women “self-actualize.” What this means in specific terms is hard to say, simply because most feminist organization’s websites read like a daily current events blog. Apparently, in order for a woman to be truly liberated, she has to be able to make a coherent case for abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, and the illegality of the Iraq war. What this has to do with a woman’s right for opportunity in the workforce (the mission of the original feminists of the fifties) is beyond me, but hey, I’m not a feminist (at least not in American sense), so I don’t count.

What might concern me, at least one day, is my wedding. Actually, that does concern me, seeing as how I will presumably be making up half the marriage, and consequently, half the ceremony. And so I am becoming interested in a new trend visible among the feminist movement involving disparaging attitudes towards marriage and weddings.