Tuesday, November 23, 2004

No brute beast

Dolphins Protect New Zealand Swimmers from Shark

Another example of why dolphins and whales are amazing creatures. Not only did these dolphins exhibit reasoning skills, but this sort of inter-species altruism is not explainable in Darwinian terms of "survival of the fittest".

Here is the sea, great and wide, which teems with creatures innumerable, living things both small and great. There go the ships, and Leviathan, which You formed to play in it. Psalm 104:25-26

Sounds like a Cetacean to me. Some say Leviathan is a monster borrowed from Babylonian mythology, but I've never heard of a feared monster playing. Play is also characteristic of intelligence. I'm no tree hugger, but whales and dolphins ought to be protected, just as these protected the swimmers.

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Resurrection of the Moral Majority

NewsMax.com: NewsMax: "The Rev. Jerry Falwell announced Tuesday he has formed a new coalition to guide an "evangelical revolution."

It didn't work when he was leading a movement, and it won't work now that he is following one. Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson show in Blinded by Might that the Kingdom of God and the world of politics are not the same. Indeed, Christians do more harm than good when this is forgotten. There is a world of difference between inner transformation and coerced external compliance with legal mandates. As the apostle Paul wrote, the Law has only the power to point out sin and condemn; it has no power to regenerate and liberate.

If Falwell intends that Christians be unified as a witness to what God says is right and wrong, well and good. If this is a repeat of seeing the Republican party as another Constantine, it will meet with the same disappointment as it met in the late 1980s, and might even end in the election of another Bill Clinton four years from now.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Hitchens: through the secularist looking glass

Bush's Secularist Triumph - The left apologizes for religious fanatics. The president fights them. By Christopher Hitchens: "Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed...

George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries."


Interesting perspective from this leftist atheist. In assessing where the Bush White House is on the secular-theocratic divide, he looks at results rather than rhetoric. This is likely lost on the Michael Moore Kool-Aid drinkers, who have already set to work laying the groundwork for more failure in `08.

Monday, November 08, 2004

More weeping & gnashing of teeth: morality = Christian extremism

Can we save country from its leaders? (via RealClearPolitics).

The spirit of Herod and the Caesars is alive and well: anti-Christian hatred. The author seems oblivious to the irony of regarding 51% of the population as "extremists" while thinking of oneself as enlightened and tolerant. It's not the Religious Right I see as a threat to scrap the Constitution and bring the coercive power of the state to bear upon dissenters; it's the growing wing of the Democratic party that makes statements like this, refers to pro-life demostrators as having an extra chromosome (as Al Gore did) or the out-of-touch leftists in the mainstream media who are so removed from contact with Christians that they subtly raise the question of whether evangelicals differ from the Taliban.

On the other hand, if a personal, transcendant God exists only as a cultural construct (and not in reality), then people are not "endowed by [the] Creator with certain inalienable rights"; these are bestowed by government or social contract. And what these latter two bestow, they may also legitimately take away. Contrary to the above rant, it is when belief in the Creator is rejected that rights become alienable and no rational basis remains for freedom of dissent. Four years from now, the author will be just as free to live in immorality or spew anti-Christian hatred, but I'm not confident that we "extremists" would enjoy such freedom if a government she supported attained the executive and legislative branches.

This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God. John 3:19-21

The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. 1 John 2:9

Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets. Luke 6:22-23

Saturday, November 06, 2004

A vote against Kerry

A centrist commentator at Roger L. Simon's blog (via InstaPundit): "I voted against a party that embraces blowhards like Michael Moore, even to the extent of giving him a seat in the presidential box at their national convention. I voted against barely literate 'celebrities' that feel that their opinions are somehow weightier than mine, and the media that enables them. I voted against the party of Terry McAuliffe. I voted against the party of George Soros. I voted against the party that will not denounce groups that cannot and will not tell the difference between the President of the United States and Adolph Hitler. I voted against the party that embraces the first amendment as long as it is not used to ensure the freedom to speak against or criticize them."

This was only the last of several devastating critiques. As the man says, read the whole thing.

Friday, November 05, 2004

Demonstrating why Dems lost, enlightened leftist spews bile

--Back from business travel--

(Via Drudge) This rant is how one Slate contributor chose to react to President Bush's convincing reelection: pure secular leftist elitism. She "admits" what the intelligentsia know: that the masses are unthinking, barbaric, evil, and many are even -gasp!- Bible-believing Christians! No wonder they didn't see the wisdom of electing Jean-Francois Kerry.

It will be intesesting now to see which direction the Democrats take now after three successive election losses. They can either move toward moderation as Joe Lieberman demonstrates and be more inclusive as Zell Miller argues, or they can continue to embrace anger and bitterness as exemplified by Michael Moore, Al Franken, Al Gore, and the above author, and continue to spiral downward to even less relevance. Poor Fox News contributor Pat Caddell! If the Dems had heeded his message of moderation they might well have won the White House, and Caddell had been saying for months that because they wouldn't his party was doomed to losing.

John Kerry's concession speech was moderate and even gracious. Yet nobody needs to be reminded of the need for unity and respect more than the rage-filled wing of his own party. If they don't figure that out, America will be functionally a one-party state, and that's not good for any of us. On the other hand, the majority rejected the thuggery and hectoring of the leftists and the propaganda that now passes for journalism in many quarters, and voted for someone other than the one they were told to vote for. The Republic still lives.