Presidents Obama and Chavez and Secretary of State Clinton are all among the throngs of politicians around the world calling for the reinstatement of ousted Honduran president Zelaya.  The rallying cry is that Zelaya is the democratically elected president and that reinstating him would restore constitutionality to Honduras.  This is not only gross patronization to the Hondurans but is also beyond stupid.

Zelaya was ousted by the military, on orders of the Supreme Court and with the Congress accepting his resignation (if he wrote it or not is not the issue, Congress no longer recognizes him as the president) and swearing in the constitutionally next in line and Zelaya ally as the new president.  Oh and also the people don’t seem too upset; in a country of 7 million, 200 have shown up to protest.

So the only way I can see of reinstating Zelaya would be to invade Honduras, kill soldiers defending their homeland from foreign aggression, arrest the Supreme Court Justices, arrest most of the members of Congress,  execute the top military brass, and install Zelaya as president and enforce his rule (his military is dead at this point so it will have to be done by foreign troops) on a population that does not want him.  And this is what is referred to as “restoring the constitutionality”.  If you know of any other way to do it feel free to comment.

The Real Victims of Islam.

The news is filled with reports of the terrorist attack on Mumbai, India.  We do not yet know what the terrorists’ motives are; they could have to do with Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, or any number of other hotspots.  One thing that is known is that the assailants are Muslim.  I believe one of the most effective aspects of Islamic terror is that it causes non-Muslims to hate and despise Muslims.  The actions of the terrrorists are reprehensible and I do not defend them at all.  The fate of their victims are horrendous and tragic and not to be belittled in any way.  However, I believe that the ultimate victims of Islam are often forgotten because it i easier to divide the world in to us and them and because we prefer to hate.

The murdered victims of Islamic terrorism are tragic but they are also dead, Islam can harm them no more.  The real victims of Islam are the people who have to live under it.  Much has been made of the plight of women in strict Islamic countries and rightly so; they are some of the most oppressed people on the planet.  I would like to point out however, that Muslim women in less strict and even western countries and even Muslim men have to live everyday of their lives believing in Islam.

Allah is a very distant god.  He would not even speak directly to the prophet Mohammed but had an angel mediate between them.  Muslim men and women spend their lives attempting to fulfill all the requirements to get into Heaven and escape Hell.  One of these is a visit to Mecca.  The Saudi governement places a strict cap on the number who can go to Mecca each year and hundreds of millions of Muslims will never even have the chance. Even completing the requirement is not gaurentee; those who escape Hell do so by the arbitrary descision of Allah. Even Mohammed said “What Allah will do with me, I know not.“   Think of the phychologcal and spiritual oppression of these teemining millions, these are Islam’s real victims.

A shirt by Threadless. Look em up!

Liberal and conservative economic models share a common flaw.  For the most part Democrats and Republicans are synonymous with liberals and conservatives but not quite.  The vast majority of Democrats and Republicans take a compromised position on economic policy.  They lean liberal or lean conservative but are unwilling to commit fully.  This is symptomatic of one or more of the following, intellectual laxity, a lack of commitment or belief in the cause, or pandering to voters which in turn shows  a lack of moral character and fortitude.  Socialists and Libertarians tend to be much more consistent in their economic policy views and carry liberal and conservative philosophy much closer to their respective logical conclusions than most members of the two major parties do.  For the sake of this article the terms “liberal” and “conservative” will refer more to the ideals of those philosophies rather than to the mostly inconsistent members of any particular party.

The thing that liberals and conservatives mutually miss or mess up in economic policy is love.  Yes that’s right, love.  I’ll start with the liberals.

Liberals tend to be concerned with the well being of the poor, which is good and loving.  So they begin on the right track but, they forget about love, and so go about it all wrong.  Liberal economic policy in a simplified form is like Robin Hood, take from the rich and give to the poor.  Because the money was not given freely, but rather forced by law, it is not charity. The rich, some of whom are very charitable, resent their money being voted out of their hands and given to the voters.  They feel that the masses have risen up and stolen from them like a pitchfork mob storming the castle.  Because it was not charity (that is, a gift), the poor begin to feel they have a right to it and thus that the rich have stolen from them.  The poor then come to resent the rich.  So liberal economic policy leads to greater mutual class resentment and less love.

Conservative economic policy focuses on what is just.  It is unjust to take a man’s private property so conservatives push for fewer taxes and freer markets.  They count on the market growing when there are fewer restrictions and generally it does.  This they reason, should help the poor in a trickle down effect.  In this model, the poor are an afterthought, not very loving.  The poor resent being an afterthought and the rich assume that the poor are poor because they are either lazy or stupid.  This is not a good way to breed love.

Charity (that is, grace) is the action of love.  Charity and love are two sides of the same coin. Where there is no love, there can be no charity, this is the problem of conservative economics.  Where there is not charity, there can be no love, this is the problem of liberal economics.  So liberals and conservatives take different paths to smothering love as much as possible.  Call me crazy.

Jiminy is the manliest of bugs.

I have written several times before on truth, the lack of it, the abuse of it, and the blatant disregard of it.  USA Today published an article and an opinion piece that should be of interest to any of my fellow lover’s of truth out there.  This is just downright infuriating.  The articles are both on the lack of truth in the political TV ads from the McCain and Obama campaigns.

If you want my concise paraphrase of both articles here it is, “Neither of the United States presidential candidates seems to have scruples about completely  misleading the American people for their own political gain and McCain is the worse of the two.” There you go.

There is so much more I could say on this.  I believe this is the inevitable result manifest, of living in the postmodern era.

The fact checking websites,  FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com were heavily cited in both the article and the opinion.  The chart below helps to demonstate how widespread the problem is.

PolitiFact.com rates candidates’ statements on a six-category scale from “true” to “pants on fire” falsehoods.

Barely true

McCain 22

Obama 14

False

McCain 23

Obama 18

Pants on fire

McCain 6

Obama 1

Source: PolitiFact.com, a joint venture of the St. Petersburg Times and CQ.

This stuff makes me want to pull my hair out and start lighting things on fire!

What a roguishly maverick character, eh?

The race for the White House is about McCain’s experience and Obama’s charisma and celebrity, or at least it was until Sarah Palin was put on the ticket.  By far the largest legitimate chink in Obama’s armor was his lack of experience.  McCain has found a way to make sure that this is not a campaign issue.  Obama can not attack McCain on his lack of celebrity without exposing the superficiality of his own campaign but McCain could use Obama’s inexperience against him, could that is until he tapped Palin to be his running mate.

Palin’s experience amounts to being governor of Alaska for a whopping 20 months.  Being governor of any state is a tough job but does that qualify you to be president?  Isn’t that like being the mayor of Denver with more parkland?  That’s good resume’ fluff if you want to be vice president of the Red Cross but we’re talking about being VP of the United States, one heartbeat from the White House!

I think Sarah Palin was chosen because McCain hopes she will be able to get people excited, that she will be a celebrity.  So, both candidates  tried to patch up their armor with their VP picks.  Its just that Biden’s experience helps Obama’s campaign and Palin’s inexperience helps Obama’s campaign.  I do give McCain some credit though, if all he wanted was a conservative Obama then he could have put Joel Osteen on the ticket.

    A colleague of mine in the blogging world, Adrian Thysse commented on my last article, The Fifty-First Psalm in English Verse.  His comment brought up some interesting and very important questions facing the world today.  These questions are some of the key battlefields in the so called, culture wars.  I started to respond to Mr. Thysse’s comment with another comment but, it soon became too long and too divergent from the original article.  Mr. Thysse’s original comment appears below in full.

Adrian Thysse
June 30, 2008

“Behold, I in iniquity
Was formed the womb within;
My mother conceived me also,
In guiltiness and sin.

It is a heavy burden Christian’s bear, but self imposed.Doesn’t your passion for truth conflict with your faith? How do you keep them separate?

The first part is a direct quote from my post.  It is Psalm 51:5, in an English verse translation.  My response to the questions raised by Mr. Thysse is below.  In deciding how to respond, I found that moving in reverse order (of that in which the questions were posed) will work best. 

    How do I keep my faith and my passion for truth separate?  There is an underlying claim in this question and it is that, my faith is not also true.   I fully understand that Mr. Thysse is not a Christian and so, I expect him to believe Christianity to be false.  Also nothing should be taken dogmatically.  The more important an issue is, the more reason there is to test the conclusion.  Certainly world view and metaphysical beliefs are extremely important, and so should be subjected to the highest levels of scrutiny.  See my article, Pseudo-Polite Conversation, for more on my views on this.  

The unstated premises (I hope Mr. Thysse will forgive me for making assumptions) for this question are that,

• Christian faith is unreasonable and not supported by reason.
• I am a reasonable person (he says that I have a “passion for truth”) and yet am a Christian.
  
• The first and second premises contradict
  
• Therefore, I am either making a separation between faith and rationality (as Mr Thysse believes) or I am a walking contradiction.

    Now that I have spent two paragraphs expanding a six word question, I will get to answering it.  First I would like to thank Mr. Thysse for implying that I am a reasonable person.  Thanks.  I try my best to be reasonable and your ackowledgment of the fact means that we can conduct a civilized debate.

    Second, I do not keep them separate.  (Hey, a six word response!)  To do so would constitute a contradiction.  I can not love truth during the week and indulge in what I know to be fantasy on Sundays.  That would be literally and in all other ways, insane. 

    So, it appears that I have backed myself into a corner.  Mr. Thysse presented a dilemma, either I make a separation or I live a contradiction.  I have stated that to make a separation would be a contradiction.  So it appears that, I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t.  I have already stated that I do not make a separation between my faith and my passion for truth.  I’ll now address the other option in the dilemma, namely that I am a walking contradiction.

    This, I do not accept.  I do not believe that a contradiction exists between my faith and my pursuit of truth.  (I suppose, I should be thankful to Mr. Thysse for assuming that I made a separation rather than asking “why are you a walking contradiction?”)  I find Christian faith to best explain the universe we live in.  That is to say, I find Christianity to be reasonable and rational. 

    We must dismiss completely, with the idea that metaphysical questions, (such as, what is ultimate reality, is there a god, what is the meaning of life,  and why is there evil?) are questions of science or that science could answer.  They are not.  These are not the sort of questions that scientists ask; nor are they the sort of questions that science answers.  If we found video footage of the last six billion (or 100 billion) years and could see the beginning of life and all the wars and famines in history, it would not tell us why there is evil, if there is a god, if he is active or passive, or if he is knowable or distant. 

    Science ( and mathematics, physics etc.)  is very useful but, it is limited.  Science can answer many questions but not questions of this sort.  I do not know if Mr. Thysse’s belief that Christianity is unreasonable is based on an adherence to science or not but, it is very common to believe that science is somehow at odds with faith, religion, and even philosophy.  It is not.  It cannot be.  Science being opposed to these things is like English muffins being opposed to purple.  If you believe in English muffins then you cannot believe in purple and the other way around.  It makes now sense at all.  You cannot even conceive of what it means for English muffins to oppose purple.  The same is true of science opposing faith.

    It seems that in the course of answering the question about separation, I have also answered the question, “doesn’t your passion for truth conflict with your faith?”  It does not.  My faith is based on what I believe to be true.  I believe it was Augustine who said that “all truth is God’s truth.”  This is what I believe.  If God exists, and I believe he does, then all honest search for truth whether molecular biology, astronomy, philosophy, or a criminal investigation, is a search for God.  This is true even when the searcher is not conscience of it or does not believe in God. However, when the search is not really about truth but rather about supporting a previously held position, then neither is it a search for God. 

    Now to respond to the first sentence in Mr. Thysse’s comment. 

It is a heavy burden Christian’s bear, but self imposed.

The burden is only self imposed if it is not true, but that is beside the point and not worth arguing about at the moment.  Mr. Thysse has made a very astute observation that most of the secular world does not recognize or at least, does not admit to recognizing.  Mr. Thysse has recognized the heavy burden.  Yes there is a heavy burden, but Christians do not bear it.  That is the essence of Christianity.  We have sinned, we are living outside of our original nature, we are God’s enemies but God in his love has extended his hand to us, so that we may become His children!  He has taken the burden from us!  We do not bear the burden because Jesus bore it on our behalf.  As Paul said,

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
Romans 8:1 English Standard Version. Underlining mine.

 Or even earlier in that same Psalm,

For your compassion great, blots out
All my iniquity.
Psalm 51:2 

And later,

With perfume do, you sprinkle me,
I shall be cleansed so;
Yes, wash me please, and then I will
Be whiter than new snow!
Psalm 51:7

Or as Jesus Himself said,

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.“ 
Mathew 11:28-30 English Standard Version. Underlining mine.

This is Why Christianity is ultimately reasonable and rational.

• It explains where the universe came from, God created it.  This is a question that you must answer no matter what you believe about old Earth creationism, young Earth creationism, intelligent design, evolution, the big bang, panspermia, or any other theory out there.
• It accepts the existence of evil as evil. (as does Islam and some other religions)
• It reconciles men who do evil with God, (Islam does not) who is pure good and has nothing to do with evil. 
  
• This is accomplished through Jesus Christ.  This is the lifting of the burden.

Looking back, I’m glad that I made an article out of this instead of a comment.  I hope this is useful to Mr. Thysse and anyone else out there with similar questions.  I gladly accept comments and criticism especially from Mr. Thysse.  Please don’t hesitate to comment, anyone, this is a debate after all. 

What is the mission of coalition troops in Iraq today?  This is a legitimate question that I would like responses to.  I’m not trying to prove a point, I’m just asking.  The removal of Saddam Hussein was a noble act and a just cause for going to war, even without WMD’s, ties to terrorism, or threats to his neighbors.  Hussein was a cruel dictator and the world is better with him gone.  I also understand the rationale behind staying to ensure fair democratic elections.  It is true that the Al Maliki government is not completely stable, but it is doubtful if it will ever be stable as long as coalition troops are there.  There is still violence in Iraq, but there can be no question that much of it is because of the presence of Western troops on Muslim soil.  The Bathists have for the most part been defeated.  Is it within the scope of the mission for the United States and Britain to prevent a civil war and Iraq?  It looks more and more like that is what they are doing.

This is from, Jihad Watch who in turn got it from, Infidel Bloggers Alliance. I never thought of the Fins as the type to back down from a fight. I always had this idea that they were rugged individualists who prided themselves on their independence. Through 700 years of foreign occupation, they were able to maintain their cultural identity and their language. Twice, they refused to back down to the Soviets and once to the Nazis. Yet today, I read that they have bent to the will of the Islamists. I don’t know what kind of rights are recognized by the Finnish government, but I had assumed that they were basic enough to include freedom of speech. I thought that was a given in the Western world. If it was, then it’s not anymore. The Islamists have accomplished what both the Red Army and the SS failed to do.

Finland sentenced blogger, Seppo Lehto to two years and seven months in prison. His crime? Defamation, inciting ethnic hatred, and inciting religious hatred. Lehto posted a video on YouTube in which he draws a pig named Mohamed popping a squat on the Koran. There is little doubt that Lehto is vile and hateful and I am not defending him, but this got him two years and seven months in a country where the maximum sentence for murder is twelve years! It appears clear to me, that Finland is afraid of the Islamists and is slowing surrendering. When will we see burqas and religious police in Helsinki?

Here is a link to the movie, you can watch it if you want to, but it is offensive. However, what he says about Mohamed being a pedophile is true, if you believe having sex with a nine year old is pedophilia. Citation from al-Hadith. I would love to get responses, especially from Fins, most especially from Muslim Fins.

Iraq never should have been a country.  Its borders are lines drawn in the sand by colonial powers after World War I.  The various peoples have no historic ties to bind them together in neighborly love nor do they have political, religious, or ideological ties.  Saddam Hussein was able to keep the country nominally unified through extreme brutality.

It should be partitioned into at least three smaller countries.  This would allow the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds to govern themselves as they see fit.  The only reason that the country was not partitioned after the ouster of Hussein was that the United States did not want to be accused of nation making by Britain, France, Russia, China, and others.  Make no mistake, the world powers will for the most part jump at any opportunity to criticize the U.S. but that is still the course of action that should have been taken and is possibly what should still happen.

The difficulty now is that the United States claims to have given sovereignty to Baghdad.  Of course any sovereignty Baghdad has is at the pleasure of the US as the US gave it to them and props them up through blood and treasure but, it is necessary to maintain the illusion of Iraqi sovereignty for diplomatic reasons.

A lot has been made of the division of oil wealth and how that is an obstacle to partition.  Call me old fashioned, but Iraq does not share its oil revenue with its neighbors currently, does it?  Does Japan share the revenue it gets from exporting electronics with Korea?  No, of course not.  Why would it?  I see no reason why Sunni Iraq should be expected to share revenue with Shia Iraq or vice versa.  To me this is a non-issue and those that are making a big deal of it are naïve, communal hippies, or attempting to stop progress.

Certainly partitioning Iraq would be of benefit to the average Iraqi but they can hardly be expected to take kindly to a foreign power chopping up their country.  If the US and Britain (etc.) were to completely pull out of Iraq before completely beating all remnant of the various militant groups, then it is very likely that Iraq would divide along sectarian lines anyway.  It may be inevitable; Iraq does not want to be a country.  In the absence of a strong armed dictator or foreign military powers, Iraq may just dissolve.

I read the New York Times every day, and on the whole I find it to be a pretty good source of news.  Though the New York Times leans liberal as with most news agencies in the US, I do not buy into the right wing conspiracy theories that the New York Times exists as a propaganda wing of the DNC or anything like that.  However today there was an editorial that was so false and offensive, that I was compelled to respond.  The first thing that is offensive about it is that it was printed as an editorial, this means no one had to attach their name to it.  If you’re going to express your opinion, especially one so controversial, be vertebrate enough to attach your name to it. I have reprinted the article below in its entirety, it is of course copyright, the New York Times, 2008, and you can go to the original article by clicking on the title.  My responses are in italics.

June 7, 2008

Editorial

The Cons of Creationism

When it comes to science, creationists tend to struggle with reality. They believe, after all, that evolution by means of natural selection is false and that Earth is only a few thousand years old. They also believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology — or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view — are not being disadvantaged.

This first paragraph serves no purpose except to set up the enemies of the New York Times editorial board in a bad light by associating them with the name, creationist.  The New York Times has stooped the same level as drunk kids, who call the police, the Gestapo.  They are trying to generate negative sympathy by calling names.

The Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, setting an example that several other states are likely to follow. This is code for teaching creationism.

Not only is this a lie, but it’s not a very good lie.  Any human who is not in a vegetative state, should be able to distinguish between teaching the strengths and weaknesses of one theory from teaching a totally different theory.  The New York Times has effectively said that, “teaching the advantages and disadvantages of freestyle swimming is the same thing as teaching the backstroke.” 

Any theory that is to be taught should be taught in its strengths and its weaknesses, to do otherwise would be to teach dogma, not science.  Education should be about teaching children how to think.  The New York Times seems to believe education is about teaching children to regurgitate facts given them by their betters.  In the pursuit of truth, all facts should be allowed to come to light.  If the New York Times is so confident in the theory of evolution than they certainly have nothing to fear from teaching its weaknesses.

It has the advantage of sounding more balanced than teaching “intelligent design,” which the courts have consistently banned from science classrooms. It has the disadvantage of being nonsense.

Because there cannot possibly be weakness in dogma.

The chairman of the Texas board, a dentist named Don McLeroy, advocates the “strengths and weaknesses” approach, as does a near majority of the board. The system accommodates what Dr. McLeroy calls two systems of science, creationist and “naturalist.”

The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator. Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin. If the creationist view prevails in Texas, students interested in learning how science really works and what scientists really understand about life will first have to overcome the handicap of their own education.

With this first statement, I completely agree.  The Genesis story is a story that must be taken on faith.  However, the New York Times is once again resorted to equating Darwinism’s weaknesses with creationism.  There is no reason whatsoever to reference any divine creator, when speaking of the weaknesses of a scientific theory. 

If evolution has evolved since the time of Darwin, then it must necessarily have had weaknesses.  If it had no weakness then it could not have evolved. 

Students will certainly be handicapped by not having the approved dogma drilled into their skulls.  After all, they are only deltas.  They are not capable of examining evidence without  the guidance of someone superior to themselves.  Instead, they will have a scientific theory that as the New York Times rightly points out is evolving, taught to them in its strengths and weaknesses.  Who knows what this could do to a Delta’s mind?  It is obviously in their own best interest of a shield them from this.

Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.

Ahhh, I get it now.  Evolution is exempt from examination.

If the weaknesses are antiquated and long since solved, then teach that.  It is not too difficult to do, “this is a purported weakness, and this is how it has been purported to be solved.”

This last sentence is the most offensive of the entire article.  The condescension and patronization is blatant and disgusting.  They believe that people of faith are too stupid to see that this is mockery in the clothing of a concession.  The New York Times has spent several paragraphs, demonstrating that they believe creationism to be a fantasy.  Then they have the gall to elaborate on where it should be taught!  No I’m sorry, it is never appropriate to teach fantasies as realities.

The origins debate rarely rises above the level of a playground brawl on either side, and that is a shame.  However, the New York Times has brought it to a new low.  In the past people such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris have argued that religious faith was nothing more than fantasy, but they had the decency to state the obvious, that fantasy should not be taught anywhere.  They also had the decency to write their names on the front of their books.
                                                                                                                                     J. W. Kraft