Two weeks ago, J.K. Rowling (author of the Harry Potter series) took a break from swimming in cash, to speak to rabid fans at Carnegie Hall. The audience’s shock turned to outright happy bedlam when Ms. Rowling answered a fan’s question about a prominent character’s love life. Her response: “Dumbledore is gay.” The CNN story, here.
My problem with this revelation has nothing to do with Dumbledore’s gayness—it has everything to do with our post-modern conception of literature. If I were to tell you that Hester Prynne was a lesbian, then you would politely ask me to open up The Scarlet Letter and prove it from the text. The text must speak for itself. Her lesbianism would be a fantastical personal projection upon her character if the text did not prove it out. Because the genre is fiction, Dumbledore is only Dumbledore between the covers of the book. He does not exist, except within the book and in Ms. Rowling’s mind. Dumbledore may be gay inside Rowling’s mind, but the character (as presented in the books) cannot be gay, unless words describe him as such. Rowling could have said something even more outlandish. She could have said, “Albus Dumbledore is really a fire-breathing, burrito-shaped alien underneath his character’s mask.” Well, ok, we’ll believe you, but it has no bearing on the character that we see written in the books. They are two separate entities—Rowling’s imagination and Rowling’s actual written words. Gay Dumbledore and Book Dumbledore are two separate characters.
Somebody needs to tell Ms. Rowling that Dumbledore is a fictional character.
Dorothy Sayers once received a letter from a lady wondering if one of her fictional characters was a Christian. Sayers simply dismissed the ladies’ concern and replied that his fictional status prevented her from caring whether he was or not.
It seems as if post-modern revisionism applies to any written work. So, regardless, of what you hear from the pulpit on Sunday, my entire sermon will really be about the perils of homosexual fire-breathing burrito-shaped wizard aliens. Just trust me on this one, it’s in my head.
Once again, fundamental fringe Christianity makes us all want to wear a costume—preferably a brown paper bag. For those of you who don’t believe that God’s gracious act towards sinners is shocking enough….ladies and gentlemen, I give you Hell House. Quick definition: Hell Houses are church-sponsored “haunted houses” that try to scare the spiritual pajamas off your quaking sinful body by showing participants scenes of shocking sinful practices… and the eternal penalties incurred) The picture below depicts a school shooting.
For definitions:
The New York Times article, here.
Pastor Keenan Robert’s Website: here. (producers of the Hell House kit)
And Christianity Today’s article on Robert’s ministry, here.
What is so bad about showing skit after skit that shows abortion, homosexuality, suicide, use of alcoholic beverages, pre-marital sex, occultism, and Satanic ritual abuse?
For starters:
The organizer of these events keeps citing Romans 6:23 (“for the wages of sin is death”). True enough. But camping in Romans chapter 6 without hiking to Romans 8 is like saying that it doesn’t matter where you snow-ski—as long as there is a slope and as long as there is snow. Skiing in Mentone, Alabama can be substituted for skiing in Aspen—because, hey, it’s still skiing and they both have an official, like, ski place and everything. Getting people to believe in God through “shock and awe” is just as valid as preaching about all that touchy-feely goodness of heaven. Right? Perhaps not….Context is everything. The Gospel stretches across generations showing God’s certain redemptive movements for His people. Quoting one verse is always suspect.
What about the sneaking praise of moralism? Sure, they identify some troubling offenses against God’s holiness, but what if all of these shocking external sins are averted? Then what? Are we safe, then? Sweet morality apart from Christ is just as spiritually bloody as the abortion doctor’s forceps.
Has anybody seen Hell House, the documentary? I’d be curious about your reaction.
Everybody reading this blog knows that I consider myself a pretty staunch Republican. That said, the Republican party frustrates me to no end with its failure to do the smart thing. I’ve blogged before about the S-CHIP reauthorization, which you can read here.
It appears that the Republicans won that battle - the Congress failed to override Bush’s veto of the bill. However, they played it with the green eyeshades - it costs too much, it’s ineffective, etc. That’s not always the winning approach, even when you’re right.
This morning, I found this video at the Captain’s Quarters blog (which I highly recommend). This illustrates one of the Republicans’ problems, I think. They have the better part of the issue on the facts. The other side’s proposals are absurd. Yet, Republicans don’t put clever stuff like this on TV, where ordinary folks will see it and laugh - relegating it to YouTube:
I’m sure there are highly-paid consultants in DC and NY who churn out the crappy political ads that show up on TV these days. This guy’s doing it free on the internet. Who’s better? If the GOP were smart, wouldn’t they have someone trolling around to find this type of talent?
I love the internet. The GOP has yet to exploit it to their maximum advantage.
PS - The same guy’s got another of these here. Pretty funny.
It’s for idiotic stuff like this. NOTE: This link is probably better for adults only (especially the comment threads, some of which are really funny, though).
Ordinary humans (i.e., non-lawyers) probably can’t imagine either 1) having an argument over what falls within such a definition or 2) having to have a definition of such a blazingly obvious thing in the first place.
Ordinary human taxpayers in Wisconsin are probably pretty upset that their supreme court actually had to waste time and taxpayer money ruling on it, especially once they see what the ruling is.
Kimberly hates rules of ethics. Her view is that you either have ethics or you don’t, and if you don’t, no set of rules is going to give them to you. I’d say this proves her point.
An interesting thing happened over the weekend in Louisiana (besides the Auburn game). That state elected a new governor, whose name is Bobby Jindal. Read the wire dispatch here.
Jindal, currently a Congressman from subsurban New Orleans, can claim several firsts. He’s the first non-white governor in Louisiana since reconstruction. He’ll be the youngest sitting governor in the nation in January at the age of 36. He’s also the first governor of Indian heritage in American history.
Most interestingly to me from a political point of view is that, as a Republican in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1, Mr. Jindal won on the first ballot, avoiding a run-off for the first time in decades. He got 54% of the vote in a field of eleven candidates.
He ran on a platform of ending corruption and cronyism, a tall order for Louisiana (as it would be for Alabama, too).
I think, though, that he’s a name you may want to watch.
Well, 2007 is flying by. It’s almost time for the Reformation Celebration, Thanksgiving & Christmas come in rapid fire succession after that. For the RPC Book Group, that means it’s time to decide about next year’s books.
For those not attending lately, let me give you an update before I preview next year:
We will finish looking at Pride & Prejudice next week. We have decided that we have time to squeeze one more in this year, so we will look at Graham Greene’s End of the Affair beginning on Oct 30 and lasting 3-4 weeks. We’ll then break until January.
Beginning then, we embark on a very eclectic group of titles. Here they are:
Late this year, I’ll post a piece here &/or in Salt & Light and give a blurb about each title.
Please take note of any or all that you want to participate in- we’d love to have your input & fellowship!
The tendency to exclusively understand the Gospel in light of my own sin exposes my weakness and my own immaturity in the Gospel.
But Saint Paul has something else in mind: (Ephesians 3:1-13ff)
You do not even understand the Gospel fully for yourself,
until you understand it for someone outside of yourself.
But not only that, but someone who has sinned against you and is rightly deserving of punishment.
Spiritual navel gazing cannot sustain a believer.
So I got up this morning and saw the news that Al Gore had actually won the Nobel Peace Prize. Perusing a sampling of reaction on the internet, I think that the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, hit the nail on the head:
“The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct,” the statement said. “It rather seems that Gore’s doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace.”
The award committee practically acknowledges as much:
Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.
Got that? There MAY be a danger of conflict. What planet are these people living on? I suppose it escaped their notice that the US Army and the US Marine Corps have been in Iraq actually trying to bring some semblance of order and peace to that country for several years now, and are actually having some measure of success. Or how about the residents of Anbar province, where the locals have turned on Al Quaeda and pacified their cities?
Actually, I know that it didn’t escape their notice. They’re a bunch of political hacks. Consider some of their past award recipients, noted this morning by Scott Johnson at Powerline:
2005
MOHAMED ELBARADEI (joint winner). He’s done such a nice job with Iran.
2004
WANGARI MAATHAI. The Kenyan ecologist peacefully teaches that the AIDS virus is a biological agent deliberately created by the Man.
2002
JIMMY CARTER JR., former President of the United States of America. A true cosmopolitan, he has undermined the foreign policy of his own country and vouched for the bona fides of tyrants and murderers all over the world.
2001
UNITED NATIONS, New York, NY, USA.
KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary General. Among other things, they have respectively served as the vehicle for, and presided over, one of the biggest scams in history.
1994
YASSER ARAFAT (joint winner), Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, President of the Palestinian National Authority. He was a cold-blooded murderer both before and after receiving the award.
1992
RIGOBERTA MENCHU TUM, Guatemala. She is the notorious Guatemalan faker and author, sort of, of I, Rigoberta Menchu.
1988
THE UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCES New York, NY, U.S.A. Notwithstanding rapes and sex abuse committed by the team in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and the Congo, still doing fine work all over the world.
The will of Alfred Nobel, in establishing the Peace Prize specified that it go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” I leave it to the reader to decide whether Al Gore and the luminaries noted above actually fit that description, or are just the most politically correct flashes in the pan at the time.
I’ve been pretty hard on Dr. Dobson for his political activities, especially in this cycle. Basically, I’ve accused him of being too desirous of political influence. I probably shouldn’t beat a dead horse like this, but Dobson’s statements display at best political miscalculation, and, at worst, a betrayal of one of his most loudly proclaimed issues.
Dr. Dobson is VERY pro-life. I am too. As a Christian, I believe abortion to be morally wrong. As a lawyer, I believe that Roe v. Wade was based on shoddy legal and constitutional reasoning, and should be reversed. So, know that in all I’m about to say, Dobson and I share the same goal, ostensibly.
Here’s a key excerpt from Dr. Dobson’s op-ed piece from the New York Times:
If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate.
Now, let’s reason this thing through, shall we? The most basic political reality of the universe is that neither party can hope to win if its base doesn’t support it. Pro-life and religious conservatives are the base of the GOP. So, if they go voting for a minor party with no chance of winning, then they’ve basically ensured the victory of the Democrat. Putting this into simpler terms, a vote by Dobson for a minor party is a vote for Hillary Clinton.
Now, contrary to the way everyone talks, the president can do one and only one thing to hope to meaningfully influence abortion policy in this country: appoint judges who think that Roe was wrongly decided to the US Supreme Court.
Let us grant for a moment that Rudy Guiliani is not in perfect harmony with the base on abortion. Here is the real crux of the matter: who is more likely to appoint a justice that will reverse Roe - Rudy or HRC?
The chances of HRC appointing anything but a raving liberal (her husband’s first appointment was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former general counsel for the ACLU - that’s a clue) are absolutely zero, and everyone with a pulse know it.
Rudy’s spokesman on judicial appointments is Theodore Olson, who was solicitor general under GWB and a legal advisor in the Reagan administration. His conservative bona fides are challenged by no one. Ted Olson has said that Rudy is committed to appointing federalism-minded justices (who would return the matter to the states, as the law was pre-Roe), like Roberts and Alito. This is far more likely to produce an anti-Roe judge than HRC.
Not only is supporting Rudy more likely to produce a Roe reversal, but even a candidate like Fred, who’s expressly pro-life, won’t guarantee a vote to overturn. After all, Reagan appointed Sandra O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, and GHWB appointed David Souter, all three of whom refused to vote to overturn when given the choice.
So, my question is, what’s up with Dobson and this issue. If he truly cared about getting Roe overturned, any Republican, Rudy included, is infinitely more likely to move the court in that direction than Hillary. Yet, he’s bound to know that urging Christian conservative voters, with whom he carries a great deal of influence, to vote third party, that he’ll insure the election of a president who will use SCOTUS nominations to keep abortion legal. How does this advance the cause?
A wise man I know named George Kelley once told me that whenever a politician proposes to do something “for the children,” that you’d better watch out for your wallet or your freedoms, because they’re coming for one of the two. I propose that the current debate over the S-CHIP program proves out Mr. Kelley’s thesis. It also provides a sad commentary on the way we debate political issues these days.
S-CHIP is the latest political football being kicked back and forth between the Dems in Congress and Bush. Its laudable goal is to provide health insurance to children whose folks make too much money to qualify for medicaid and too little money to afford private insurance. That sounds great, but, to quote Ross Perot, the devil is in the details.
The S-CHIP program is up for renewal, and the Dems in Congress (naturally) want to expand it. Their proposed expansions would include within the definition of eligible families those making up to $80,000 per year. It would also cover “children” up to age 25. It would cover the children of illegal immigrants. It would allow states to use the money to cover adults (over 25). Finally, over half the children covered in the expanded version are currently covered by private pay insurance.
The program now costs $25 billion per year. Bush proposes expansions that would increase the cost to $30B. The Senate version (ultimately adopted in the final bill) expanded it to a cost of $60B per year, and the House would have gone up to $75B. You may ask how this is going to be paid for, and the Dem answer is by increasing tobacco taxes. Some additional details are here. Notably, cigar taxes would go from 5¢ per cigar to 53% of the price, capped at $3 per cigar.
Now, when this bill made its way to Bush’s desk, he vetoed it, claiming it was too expensive. An override vote is set for later this month. To try to rally support for the override, the Democrats had a twelve year old boy, Graeme Frost, who is a beneficiary of the program, deliver their response to the President’s weekly radio address last weekend. In the address, Graeme claimed his family was unable to afford private coverage.
Now, this is the age of the internet. However, the implications of what can be done over the net have apparently not sunken in with everyone, especially the folks who decided to give young Graeme the political mic.
You see, an enterprising blogger at the Free Republic decided to start digging and get a little background on the Frost family. Here’s part of what he found out:
1. Graeme and his sister Gemma attend the Park School, a private school that costs $20,000 per child.
2. Brown wrote that the family lives on $45,000 per year, but icwhatudo notes: “Halsey Frost has owned his own company ‘Frostworks’ since…1992 so he chooses to not give himself insurance. He also employed his wife as ‘bookkeeper and operations management’ prior to her recent 2007 hire at the ‘medical publishing firm.’”
3. His business is housed in a $160,000 building — that he owns.
4. The Frost family lives in a recently remodeled 3,000-square-foot home that cost $485,000.
Now, if true, this obviously means that the Frost family does not prioritize health coverage as much as it does property ownership or private schooling.
But is it true? Who knows? Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin has some contrary information indicating that perhaps the property values above are exaggerated and that extended family members are footing the bill for the private schools.
My point in this post is not necessarily to condemn the Frost family for their financial choices. However, some very calculating adults, including his own parents who are very obviously politically oriented against Bush (a bumper sticker on their car says “1-20-09” - the last day GWB is president), allowed this to happen. These adults decided to use their unfortunate circumstances to play on the emotions of voters and legislators to influence the legislation, which, I’d assert, would fail if subjected to analysis on its facts.
Now the Frost family, their personal medical issues, and their family finances, are subjected to a debate over the airwaves and internet. Shame on them. Shame on the Democrat party for allowing this to get started in the first place.
Politically, is this the best we can do? Has debate over government policies come to this low level? Is everything from now on going to be driven by who can come up with the best sad story? Will politics be forever driven by anecdote? Can we not argue a policy on facts and rational needs without pulling out the emotional trump card every time?
I fear that I know the answer. You smokers (and the rest of us too, since the number of smokers continues to decline) had better heed Mr. Kellley’s advice and watch your wallets.
In my previous posts entitled Core Competency and Dobson on McCain, I’ve commented on Dr. James Dobson’s dalliances in Republican presidential primary politics, and found his comments on both occasions to be improper.
Recently, it was reported that Dobson, Tony Perkins, and several other politically active evangelicals got together and met to discuss what on earth they’re going to do about the GOP and 2008. Read all about it here, but I can save you the bother: they really hope Rudy’s not going to be the nominee, and they floated the threat of a third party candidate if he is. I’m sure that the man who helped break up the Gambino crime family when he was the US Attorney in Manhattan is REALLY scared.
Even though Dobson has backed down from the third party threat, the long and short of it is that Dobson is dissatisfied with the four major candidates on the GOP side (Rudy, Romney, Fred, & McCain). I suppose they aren’t Christian enough, or something.
Particularly mystifying to me has been Dobson’s hostility toward Fred, who, on the moral/social issues Dobson cares about so much, is the most closely aligned of the four with Dobson’s views. But no more. I think I understand now. On an interview on Fox last night, Fred was asked about Dobson, his attacks on Fred’s Christianity, and whether he (Fred) wants to talk to Dobson. Here’s what Fred said:
A gentleman who has never met me, who has never talked to me, I’ve never talked to him on the phone. I did have one of his aides call me up and kind of apologize, the first time he attacked me and said I wasn’t a Christian …
I don’t know the gentleman. I do know that I have a lot of people who are of strong faith and are involved in the same organizations that he is in, that I’ve met with, Jeri and I both have met with, and I like to think that we have some strong friendships and support there… .
I don’t particularly care to have a conversation with him. If he wants to call up and apologize again, that’s ok with me. But I’m not going to dance to anybody’s tune.
Ouch. Personally, I respect Fred for having said that. As for Dobson, his seat at the political power table will be gone after November 2008, and he’s hating it.
An article written by Alan Fram (“One in Four Read No Books Last Year,” AP), was printed in many newspapers on August 21, 2007. The Washington Post purchased it and printed it, as did many other papers. You can find the online version here.
As a great reader and a protectorate of all things bibliophilic, Jimmy Hopper alerted me to the discouraging news: Americans are reading less. But more saline was to be sprayed on the wound: the article asserted that (in general) Southerners don’t interact with anything intellectual. To boot, religious people don’t see a need to read as much. Plus, old women, minorities, poor people, Southerners, country-dwellers, and conservative Republicans have an insatiable craving for religious books. Read a section for yourself:
People from the West and Midwest are more likely to have read at least one book in the past year. Southerners who do read, however, tend to read more books, mostly religious books and romance novels, than people from other regions. Whites read more than blacks and Hispanics, and those who said they never attend religious services read nearly twice as many as those who attend frequently…Those likeliest to read religious books included older and married women, lower earners, minorities, lesser educated people, Southerners, rural residents, Republicans and conservatives.
In a recent presentation to a community group, I even cited the article. My point was this: The self-satisfied, non-religious, non-Southerner, library-card-carrier can easily mutter, “That just proves those Red State Christians are crazy and it definitely shows their growing separation from the global cultural conversation.” But, I pointed out, based on the article, (and my presupposition that all mankind craves truth) the non-religious person has to ingest “more crumbs of truth,” whereas the believer enjoys a pipeline of Truth vis a vis his respective religious service.
Hindsight: What a careless and stupid point.
Why?
I failed to read the fine print underneath the article:
The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted from August 6 to 8 and involved telephone interviews with 1,003 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Where Clay Staggs might say, “I am at a loss for words,” I, on the other hand have a barrelful of words at the ready. Some, that I will choose not to use. According to the US Census Bureau, the United Sates has approximately 303,036,000 people living within its borders. 1,003 respondents is hardly representative. That would be like taking “a poll” of Bryant-Denny Stadium and asking only one person a question—if Bryant-Denny held over 3,000,000 people, that is. Out of pure Christian charity, let’s assume the AP/Ipsos Poll was methodologically responsible in the conduct of the poll. Let’s assume that they asked the proper amount of people from each state—based on population (similar to how each state gets representatives to Congress). Thus, (if conducted properly) the pollsters would have called 16 Alabama persons. (MS, 9; GA, 16;SC, 13;LA, 16, AK, 9; TN, 20) California, by contrast, would have had 121 respondents. Sixteen people represent how the state of Alabama reads? That’s not just irresponsible. That’s lunacy. How can a poll like that be the subject for an AP article and also printed in the Washington Post? I haven’t even begun to point out the inherent flaws in modern phone polls, either. What if your more “edgimicated” types subscribe to a “no-call” list? What if college grads are migrating to VOIP and cell phone usage?
Benjamin Disraeli (made popular by Mark Twain) had it right:
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Mea Culpa. Shame on me for not reading critically.
We have talked a bit about Richard Dawkins- author of The God Delusion and Oxford Professor. His book came up several times during the Sunday School sessions on faith & science.
Wednesday night at the Alys Stephens Center in B’ham, he and John Lennox (fellow Oxford prof- mathematician and chaplain) will be having a debate concerning such things as the existence of God. It will be broadcast live on the local Moody (88.9) radio station from 7-9 pm.
It has become a rare opportunity to have an actual debate of this kind in a world where truth has become tantamount to opinion and ideas have no significant consequence. Should be interesting.
So, I’m going about my ordinary day, doing my work, and while on the net found a link that said this:
“Parallel Universes Exist - Study”
Intrigued, I clicked through and found this article.
Now, I am surely not a mathematician or physicist, but this seems a bit much. These “Oxford scientists” have proved - on paper - that alternative universes exist? That, in fact, for every possibility in the physical world, the universe splits, one universe pursuing each possibility, and leaving us with an infinite number of universes?
I just want to know one thing, then. How do I get to the universe where Clay Staggs leads a life of leisure on the beach, instead of getting up and schlepping to work every day?
Wait a minute! If there are infinite universes where every alternative happens, how do I know I’m not really supposed to be in that Clay-on-the-beach universe instead of this one, and have just been abducted to this one by the alternate universe Clay, who is, even as I type this, on my alternate universe beach drinking my alternate universe beer?
