Joust The Facts

The Joust The Facts "Quote Of The Day"

Coming today from the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens, on the subject of global warming climate change.

Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.

As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

Deceit?  How about How about the climategate emails, versions 1.0 and 2.0?   Arrogance?  How about Phil Jones of East Anglia University and Michael Mann of Penn State?  Money?  How about James Hansen of NASA?  Power, politics?  How about the oracle himself, Al Gore?

Speaking of Mr. Gore, there is a legal aphorism that at least this site attributes to him:

When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the law or the facts are on your side, hollar.

Given that Al Gore has been doing a lot more "hollaring" than arguing, perhaps the laws (of science) and the facts are not really on his side.

Exit Question:  Will Jon Huntsman need to "revise and extend" his own remarks on the topic?

HUNTSMAN: Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science.

Politicians govern by concensus.  Scientists don't.

An Islam Of Convenience

James Taranto's Best of the Web today contains the following interesting story, about a Muslim 19 year old who refused to remove her hijab for her mug shot.  Yes, you read that right.

Maria Hardman, 19, of Boulder, reported to the jail Wednesday to do the paperwork for a two-day work crew sentence that was supposed to be served this weekend. But when a jail detention officer told her to remove her headscarf for her mug shot, she balked.

"It's stated in the Koran in two or three places that believing women should wear the veil, except in the company of close family members," she said.

She's undoubtedly a devout and strict adherent to the teachings in the Koran.  Well, maybe not so much.  How, indeed, did she end up on the wrong side of law enforcement in the first place?

Hardman's offense is an awkward one for an observant Muslim, whose faith prohibits alcohol consumption, to explain: driving while ability-impaired, the lesser version of a DUI.

"I was given alcohol without my knowledge," Hardman said.

Hardman said she was drinking punch that she assumed was non-alcoholic at a party in August, and when she realized she wasn't feeling herself, she asked about the punch. When she learned that it was alcoholic, she freaked out and just wanted to leave the party, Hardman said....

Hardman's blood-alcohol content after the accident was 0.19, more than two times the legal limit.

She pleaded guilty to driving while ability-impaired and was sentenced to two days in jail, as well as community service.

Well, she may have been given alcohol without her knowledge, though the cynic in someone who knows the ins and outs of college parties from past experience, me, believes otherwise.  But she apparently didn't "freak out" and try to leave the party immediately, as she admits three days later in this open letter to the community.

What people seem to forget is that this story is not about how I got to the jail. This is about what happened after I arrived at the jail, and the constitutional infringements that then occurred.

For the record, I do not dispute that I operated my 49cc motorized scooter on the day of Aug. 1. I was at a party, where I was served alcohol without my knowledge. I admit that when I discovered I was being served alcohol, I made no attempt to curb my intake.

I am 19 years old and a junior at the University of Colorado. This is far from a unique story in the college experience. For those who are in, or were at one time a college student, you will understand what I am saying.

The issue at hand revolves around my First Amendment rights as a United States citizen to freely practice my religion as I see fit.

Yes, let's not talk about how she ended up at the jail, which would be inconvenient.  How terribly convenient to insist on strict adherence to Islamic law when it disturbs police routine in booking you when detained for criminal conduct.  How terribly convenient to neglect Islamic law when it would curb your ability to consume alcohol at a party.  And this isn't about constitutional rights.  Those in custody of the law often lose rights - like the right to vote, to own a gun, and so on.

And oh, by the way, she wasn't just driving while impaired.  What's the legal drinking age in Colorado?

CNNonsense: Islamophobia

Caught this bit of CNNonsense in the OR lounge this morning.  This is the full clip, starting with a review of a finding from a Pew poll, and leading to an interview with Deepak Chopra discussing ... aw, heck, I don't even know what he was discussing.  I stopped listening after a minute or two.  Focus for a minute on the question in the Pew poll.

"Do you think Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against non-believers?"

In response to that question 46% answered "yes," that Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against non-believers.  Shouldn't that number be much higher?  Think logically for a second.  First, since the faith itself doesn't speak we have to look at leaders and their interpretations.  Do any Islamic leaders - any at all, now, located anywhere in the world - advocate violence against non-believers?  The answer is obviously yes.  Think of the Taliban, for one prime example.  Second, can you think of any other representative in any faith - Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Jew - that advocates violence against non-believers specifically because of their status as a non-believer?  I could be wrong, but my answer there is "no."  Therefore, since the answer to the first part of the construct is "yes" and to the second is "no" Islam would be more likely to encourage violence against non-believers.

Now, that's not to say that a majority, or even a sizable minority of adherents advocate violence against non-believers in Islam.  "More likely" is comparative, not absolute.  But if 2%, 1% or even 0.002% of the more radicalized Islamists believe and advocate violence and the comparison is to 0% for other faiths, that would be more likely.  And I'd feel a lot better about Islam if terrorists stopped acting in its name, and if the Danish cartoonists and Molly Norris of "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day" fame didn't have to fear for their lives, and particularly if the peaceful leaders issued unqualified denunciations.  But they don't.

CNN and Deepak Chopra, who was really there promoting his new book, would rather you not make such a rational assessment of the question.  Instead, Mr. Chopra rather slickly turns the construct around, stating that this poll demonstrates a consciously-taken misperception of Islam, held so that violence against Muslims can be justified.

No, really.  I kid you not.  That's when I stopped listening.  That's an astonishing misdirection and misrepresentation for an allegedly clear thinker.

O'Donnell And Witchcraft, Obama And Drugs

Yeah, and Barack Obama dabbled in cocaine and marijuana.  Leaving aside Ms. Malkin's point that the statements occurred during a lighthearted discussion of Halloween, and that Ms. O'Donnell essentially says not that she was a Wiccan but that she dated one, all of you out there who think that the witchcraft thing should doom her but the drug thing showed depth and character development need to explain the double standard.

I opposed Mr. Obama's run for the Oval Office because of his statist/anti-capitalist tendencies and his utter lack of experience and qualifications - concerns which, I might add, have been alarmingly confirmed - not because of some "youthful indiscretions."

For my part, I assume that neither of them are active practitioners currently, and haven't been for some time.  Both did things I never even considered, but that's not in itself a valid criterion for keeping people from public office.

And of course, more Python is always in good taste.

Fact Checking An AP Fact Check

Continuing its water-carrying for the Obama Administration, the Associated Press tries to debunk some of the "misconceptions" surrounding the controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque.  They try to convince us that, gee, it's not really at Ground Zero, it's a whole 2 blocks away.  And isn't this antithetical to the American tradition of religious freedom?  Number one on their hit list?  The misconception that Imam Rauf, heading up the mosque project is a radical.

No one has established a link between the cleric and radicals. New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne said, "We've identified no law enforcement issues related to the proposed mosque."

Well, one thing you don't need is a link between Rauf and radicals if you can show that the Imam himself is a radical.  Then you really don't need the link, do you?  The AP gives us a head start later in this section.

He has denounced the terrorist attacks and suicide bombing as anti-Islamic and has criticized Muslim nationalism. But he's made provocative statements about America, too, calling it an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks and attributing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to the U.S.-led sanctions in the years before the invasion.

Calling America an "accessory" to the 9/11 attack is not "provocative," it's flat out wrong and inflammatory.  Or "radical," if you will.  Perhaps the AP could fact check that assertion.  And questionable research in the Lancet seems to always have a home with America-bashers, which Christopher Hitchens notes and deconstructs here.  In Imam Rauf's words, "we tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims."  "We," indeed.

But let's leave all that radical talk aside, and instead wonder whether some additional evidence might surface of truly radical statements.  That would change things, wouldn't it? Terrorism specialist Steve Emerson claims to have the goods, 13 hours of audiotapes.  Hat tip: Ace of Spades, who helpfully adds

Obama and the MFM staked the entirety of their crdibility and judgment on the assertion that this was a moderate man interested only in peace, and of course in no way a supporter of terrorism, and anyone who suspected otherwise was an ignorant bigot with a heart full of hatred.

I have to admit, however, that I found it irrelevant whether the Imam was "radical", or whether it was really Ground Zero.  My opposition to the siting of the Ground Zero Mosque was based on the following:

1. Roughly 3000 people were killed when two planes were hijacked and flown deliberately into the World Trade Center towers
2. These planes were hijacked and flown into the towers by 19 Muslim men murdering in the name of Islam.
3. Islam has a history of building monuments to their conquests.  This is to be called Cordoba House, Cordoba in Spain being the capital of the Caliphate.  And yes, two blocks away is close enough.
4. Having been shocked and hurt at the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi now one year ago, the Lockerbie bomber who was granted compassionate release with allegedly three months to live and was celebrated on his arrival in Libya, I did not wish for similar insult to come to the families of those who lost their lives on 9-11.

Let them build it elsewhere.  Frankly, all of Manhattan should be off-limits for this project.

The JTF "Quote of the Day"

From Sarah Palin's Facebook page, a question (among many) for Mr. Obama in light of his statement on the Ground Zero Mosque.

If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive "cross-cultural engagement" and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven't they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite?

Indeed.

Now, such a legitimate question as this can, and often are, when filtered through the media, presented with wholly unsupportable spin.  See, for example, "GOP takes harsher stance toward Islam" from Ben Smith, who ought to know better than that, and Maggie Haberman at Politico.

Obama's remarks provide a clear, national focus for the simmering question of Islam in American life, and Republicans showed every sign Saturday of beginning to capitalize on it, with Republican candidates in New York and Florida seeking to inject the issue into local races as Democrats largely held their silence.

That stance in the GOP — both in terms of political strategy and policy views — appears to be carrying the day. Most of the potential Republican presidential hopefuls, led by Sarah Palin, came out sharply against the mosque.

There's so much wrong in this snippet it's hard to know where to begin.  Mr. Obama hardly clarified the issue with his remarks, despite dragging out his rhetorical tic "let me be clear."  He failed utterly to address the divisive plan to build the mosque, instead limiting his statement to the constitutional question of whether it is permissable.  He used Thomas Jefferson's hosting of an ambassador from Tunisia as verification of Islam's place in America.  He set up an equivalence between intolerance of Muslims and sentiments that the mosque should be build elsewhere, an equivalence that doesn't exist.  The "simmering question" isn't Islam's place in American life.  Rather, it's Islam's respect for American values, something the planners of the mosque have not demonstrated.

Smith and Haberman write that Sarah Palin "came out sharply against the mosque."  Sharply?  Harsher?  These are words written with intent.  In fact, No Republican or conservative that I have read since Mr. Obama's speech have come out "sharply" with a "harsher" stance toward Islam, including Sarah Palin.  (see the quote above at the link)  What they have done, rather, is to come out "sharply" and "harshly" against Mr. Obama's formulation of the questions involved, which is legitimate.

And by the way, Mr. Smith and Ms. Haberman, the silence of Democrats indicates not tolerance of Islam, but that they too feel that the President's rhetoric is unsupportable, and that they feel trapped by it.

My Question On The "Ground Zero Mosque"

You know the story by know.  Muslim developers, including an Imam, are attempting to build a 13 story Islamic Cultural Center, including a large mosque, 2 blocks from the crater left by the fall of the World Trade Center towers from the attack of September 11, 2001, an attack carried out by 19 Muslim extremists.  President Obama weighed in on the matter last night.

“I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” the president said in remarks prepared for the annual White House iftar, the sunset meal breaking the day’s fast.

But, he continued: “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”...

Aides to Mr. Obama say privately that he has always felt strongly about the proposed community center and mosque, but the White House did not want to weigh in until local authorities made a decision on the proposal, planned for two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center.

I have a question.  How many mosques - in New York or elsewhere - have been closed down or their plans halted due to religious intolerance, such that building this mosque to make a stand for religious freedom and tolerance justifies poking a finger in the eyes of New Yorkers, families of the victims, and other Americans still hurting from those attacks?

This isn't about religious freedom or tolerance.  I'm quite certain that this would be a non-story if the plans were to build in Hoboken, Queens, or Washington Heights.  The President wants America to demonstrate that "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."  How about expecting that the Muslim developers would show their understanding of the pain felt by all Americans following that attack by not building it there.

Americans' commitment to religious freedom is unshakable.  That's not what this is about.  This is about logistics and decency.  What should the President have said?  How about this:

"This is America, and we have an unshakable commitment to religious freedom, tolerance, equality of opportunity and equal treatment in the eyes of the government.  It's written in the words of our Constitution, and lived in the actions of Americans every day. It's not that the developers cannot build their Center so close to Ground Zero.  I would hope, however, that they would not.  In sensitivity to the loss of nearly 3000 American lives they should choose to build elsewhere.  Doing so would build a sturdier cultural bridge, show humility about the terrorism of 19 men acting falsely in the name of Islam, and demonstrate a profound understanding of America and Americans."

Or is Mr. Obama really, in Dorothy Rabinowitz' construct, the "Alien in the White House?"

8/14/10 1130:  Looks like I'm on exactly the same page as Scott Johnson.

If it is another mosque that is wanted, as Obama suggests, ordinary Americans desire only that it be built somewhere else in New York. Obama's invocation of the First Amendment right of the free exercise of religion is not on point.

In the good old USA, citizens have a right to do many wrongs. One such wrong would be the establishment of a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero. Obama simply does not engage the point. He does not argue that the establishment of a Muslim shrine at Ground Zero would be right.

The President At Fort Hood, And Inescapable Conclusions

In times of epic sadness it is often the gift of somber eloquence that helps to buoy the spirits of the throng. To reassure, to comfort, to join in dispair, and to raise up from the same.  As Marc Ambinder points out, the President surely did that today.  You can read the full text of his remarks there.

Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call - the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm's way.

Absolutely.  I'd like to have a look at another paragraph, however.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy.  But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.

While it would have been completely inappropriate on this solemn occasion for the President to point out that, yes, there does seem to be one faith in particular where it is more commonplace for its adherents to justify such murderous and craven acts, it will be appropriate and also justifiable to do so in the future.  In particular, it will be helpful for him to do so in reference to Major Hasan.  In doing so he'll help the large number of journalists and observers struggling to avoid drawing - not jumping to - that inescapable and supported conclusion.

"We don't know all the answers yet," the Associated Press quotes President Obama as saying Friday about the Fort Hood massacre. "And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."

Not only is the president right, his advice is tautological. Premature judgment is ill-advised by definition. But one senses in much of the commentary about suspect Nidal Malik Hasan a desire to avoid considered judgment as well--not just a reluctance to jump to conclusions, but a drive to go far out of one's way to avoid ever reaching one particular conclusion.

If a physician were to spend an inordinate amount of time, effort and money desperately searching for an alternative diagnosis when the obvious and well-supported one is uncomfortable then ultimately he or she would be committing malpractice.  Journalistic - and political - malpractice is no less objectionable.

11/11/09 0625: Dan Riehl makes the point that the speech thing is the one thing that Mr. Obama happens to do very well, so let's not get too excited.  Well, yeah.

It's simply embarrassing. But the fact is, this is all they've got. And it's the same thing we saw day after day on the campaign trail. So what? His stimulus package was a dismal failure, his health care bail will likely crash into the Senate and burn, and his popularity ratings are beginning to sag while his policy ratings suck.

However, man, he gave a heck of a speech. How awesome is that?

It Must Be Silly Season

From Wikipedia, in what should be an unobjectionable summary:

The silly season is the period lasting for a few months (starting in mid- to late summer) in the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia typified by the emergence of frivolous news stories in the media. This term was known by the end of the 19th century and listed in the second edition of Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable and remains in use at the start of the 21st century. The fifteenth edition of Brewer's expands on the second, defining the silly season as "the part of the year when Parliament and the Law Courts are not sitting (about August and September)".

Typically, the latter half of the summer is slow in terms of newsworthy events. Newspapers as their primary means of income rely on advertisements, which rely on readers seeing them, but historically newspaper readership drops off during this time...

Naturally when I saw the McCain campaign's ad "The One" mocking Barack Obama's messianic persona I first thought of this.

It's not easy to make the infamous Willie Horton ad from the 1988 presidential campaign seem benign. But suggesting that Barack Obama is the Antichrist might just do it.

That's just what some outraged Christian supporters of the Democratic nominee are claiming John McCain's campaign did in an ad called "The One" that was recently released online.

Let's see.  This story hinges on "outraged supporters of the Democratic nominee" (and I'd bet these are highly partisan and active supporters) claiming offense.

Critiques of the ad started surfacing earlier this week when Eric Sapp, a Democratic operative, circulated the first of two memos pointing out images that he believed linked Sen. Obama to the antichrist.

And it's written by Amy Sullivan at Time Magazine.  Ms. Sullivan, if her journalistic credentials are any indication, is not a neutral observer.

Amy Sullivan is an editor of The Washington Monthly. She has written about religion and politics for publications including the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, and The Washington Post, and has served as a commentator for The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, NPR's Morning Edition, and other news outlets. Previously, Sullivan served as a legislative assistant to U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle and as editorial director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. She holds degrees from the University of Michigan and Harvard Divinity School.

Hmmm.  Leftosphere Washington Monthly - check.  Lefty mag TNR - check.  Lefty broadsheet Boston Globe - check.  Lefty radio NPR - check.  Aide to Democratic Senator - check.  That's pretty much hitting for the cycle.

So what do I think of this?  I'm hoping to come down from the ceiling in a couple of days. 

Easter

Happy Easter, everyone.

Sowell And Diversity

Thomas Sowell writes today in the Wall Street Journal on "diversity" and it's contribution to the difficulties in Iraq.

What is it that has made Iraq so hard to pacify, even after a swift and decisive military victory? In one word: diversity.

That word has become a sacred mantra, endlessly repeated for years on end, without a speck of evidence being asked for or given to verify the wonderful benefits it is assumed to produce.

Worse yet, Iraq is only the latest in a long series of catastrophes growing out of diversity. These include "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan, the million lives destroyed in intercommunal violence when India became independent in 1947 and the even larger number of Armenians slaughtered by Turks during World War I.

Despite much gushing about how we should "celebrate diversity," America's great achievement has not been in having diversity but in taming its dangers that have run amok in many other countries. Americans have by no means escaped diversity's oppressions and violence, but we have reined them in.

What Mr. Sowell identifies as the problem is the tendency of those who over-value "diversity" to emphasize the differences between peoples, differences that seem to be associated far too often with violence between those peoples.  What that violence says is that the principle of "diversity" is often misunderstood.

Cultural diversity as we currently have in America should not be about identifying all of the different groups in America and tip-toeing around differences between their cultures and American society, but rather should be about inclusiveness in American Society due to our common "American-ness."  Thus we do a disservice to immigrants when we give them the crutch of multi-lingualism far beyond what should be their need for such.  We do Muslims a disservice when we abhor jokes and statements that offend their sensibilities when we allow, and even chuckle at, similar jokes and statements about Jews and Christians.  And we do members of all groups a disservice when we give special consideration to one or another in employment situations.

What we should hope to have is a color- and culture-blind society, where expectations and responsibilities and opportunities are the same for all 300 million of us.  Highlighting our differences is detrimental to that goal; instead we should be setting aside, even ignoring these differences.  After all what matters is the "content of [our] character," no?

Mr. Sowell concludes:

But we can at least hope that the Iraq tragedy will chasten the hubris behind notions of "nation-building" and chasten also the pious dogmatism of those who hype "diversity" at every turn, in utter disregard of its actual consequences at home or abroad. Free societies have prerequisites, and history has not given all peoples those prerequisites, which took centuries to evolve in the West.

A Teachable Moment

A Saudi businessman gave a large amount of money to Georgetown University, a Jesuit school in Washington DC, for the purpose of encouraging the study of Islam.  The details are in this Washington Post story from last December.

"As you know, since the 9/11 events, the image of Islam has been tarnished in the West," said Alwaleed, who is chairman of the Riyadh-based Kingdom Holding Co. and has extensive business holdings in Europe and the United States.

I wonder what tarnished it?  I can think of a couple of incidents.  Maybe also things like this.

SYDNEY, Australia - Australia's most prominent Islamic cleric vowed Thursday to stand strong against widespread outrage over his description of women who don't wear head scarfs as "uncovered meat" who invite rape.

Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali, long a lightning rod in strained relations between the government and the Muslim minority, apologized for any offense he caused women in making the comments a month ago during a sermon marking the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. But he said he had no intention of stepping down.

[...]

Al-Hilali, 65, is the top cleric at Sydney's largest mosque, and is considered the most senior Islamic leader by many Muslims in Australia and New Zealand, having been appointed mufti by Australia's top Islamic body.

His remarks about women drew national attention after they were printed Thursday in a national newspaper, The Australian.

In a translation from Arabic by the newspaper, later verified by other media, al-Hilali was quoted as saying in the sermon: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's?"

"The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred," he was quoted as saying, referring to the head scarf worn by some Muslim women.

Well, I'm sure there's quite a bit that the students at Georgetown can learn.  Quite a bit indeed.

10/26/06 2235: More from Ace of Spades, who finds some other connections between rape and Islam.

10/27/06 0630: The community has rallied around Sheik al-Hilali, with a stirring defense.

The sheik, who has triggered a storm over a sermon in which he blamed women for sexual assault, went to Iraq last year to help negotiate the release of Australian businessman Douglas Wood from kidnappers.

"It seems there are so many people out there waiting to pounce on him," [Islamic Friendship Council president Keysar] Trad said.

"People forget all of the great work he has done for this country, all of the strong stands that he made in support of law and order.

"This is the man who risked his life to go and rescue a fellow Australian in Iraq.

"And this is the man who done so much to empower women in Australia and yet all these are forgotten when he makes an ambiguous comment."

Oh he's done quite a bit for Muslim women in Australia.  Like set them back in their place with his latest comments.  I think it's wonderful that he helped rescue a man in Iraq.  As if that has any bearing on his comments about women.  I guess, like Lynne Stewart, if you've done any "good works" at all you get a pass.

Something Is Obviously Wrong Here

Pope Benedict XVI angered Muslims earlier this week with a speech in which he discussed Islam, quoting a 14th century tome calling Islam "evil and inhuman."

As such, it distilled many of Benedict’s longstanding concerns, about the crisis of faith among Christians and about Islam and its relationship to violence.

And he used language open to interpretations that could inflame Muslims, at a time of high tension among religions and three months before he makes a trip to Turkey.

He began his speech, which ran over half an hour, by quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, in a conversation with a “learned Persian” on Christianity and Islam — “and the truth of both.”

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread the sword by the faith he preached,” the pope quoted the emperor, in a speech to 1,500 students and faculty.

He went on to say that violent conversion to Islam was contrary to reason and thus “contrary to God’s nature.”

Jesus Christ Is Risen Today

Jesus Christ Is risen today,
Alleluia!
Our triumphant holy day,
Alleluia!
Who did once upon the cross
Alleluia!
Suffer to redeem our loss.
Alleluia!
Hymns of praise, then, let us sing
Alleluia!
Unto Christ, our heavenly King,
Alleluia!
Who endured the cross and grave
Alleluia!
Sinners to redeem and save.
Alleluia!
But the pains which He endured
Alleluia!
Our salvation have procured.
Alleluia!
Now above the sky He's King,
Alleluia!
Where the angels ever sing.
Alleluia!
Sing we to our God above,
Alleluia!
Praise eternal as His love:
Alleluia!
Praise Him, all ye heavenly host,
Alleluia!
Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Alleluia!

Happy Easter, Everyone.

Christmas

Mary's Boy Child
      (click to listen to Harry Belafonte)

(chorus)
Long time ago in Bethlehem,
So the Holy Bible say,
Mary's boy child, Jesus Christ,
Was born on Christmas day,
Hark, now hear the angels sing,
A newborn King today,
And man will live forevermore,
Because of Christmas day.
Trumpets sound and angels sing,
Listen to what they say,
That Man will live forevermore,
Because of Christmas day.

(verse 1)
While shepherds watched their flocks by night,
They saw a bright new shining star,
They heard a choir sing,
The music seemed to come from afar,

(verse 2)
Now, Joseph and his wife, Mary,
Come to bethlehem that night,
They found no place to bear her child,
Not a single room was in sight.

(verse 3)
By and by, they find a little nook,
In a stable all forlorn,
And in a manger cold and dark,
Mary's little Boy was born!

(end song with a full repeat of chorus)

Lileks Takes On The Whole ID/Evolution Thingy

Unfortunately James Lileks is simply a better writer than I.  I say unfortunately because I had been thinking about writing something in a vein similar to his Screedblog post today, and, well, he writes better.

The entire evolution vs. ID debate is setup as Tyson vs. Holyfield - a battle to the death.  What it much more closely resembles is Shaq vs. Kobe - a pairing that doesn't seem to get along, but plays for the same team and wins championships.  I know, the analogy is a stretch, but hang with me for a minute.

As Lileks says, "Uh, how about both."  Perhaps, maybe, suppose that all of the findings and scientific information that support and confirm the principles of evolution have taken place over millions of millenia.  And just suppose that maybe, perhaps, a guiding presence had a hand in that.  Why must it be one or the other?  Can't the two work together to bring us the championship trophy we see every day when we open our eyes?  Realistically the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

A day or two ago over at QandO Blog Jon Henke noted a CBS/NY TImes poll  in November 2004 which asked of Democrats, Republicans and Independents whether they believed in pure evolution, ID, or pure creationism.  The numbers between the groups were startlingly similar.  Don't take my word for it, go see for yourself.  Sure, the Republicans scored a little higher on the Creationism scale, and a little lower on the pure evolution scale, but still quite comparable.

So, why not both?  Does that solve the problem?

Today

Mark 16:2-6

[2] And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
[3] And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
[4] And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
[5] And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
[6] And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

Happy Easter, everyone.

The Passion

Luke 23: 33-48

33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,

37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.

38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

47 Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.

48 And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.

The Meaning Of Christmas

In 'A Charlie Brown Christmas, Linus gives via Scripture the true meaning of Christmas:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Luke 2:8-14

listen_to_linus.wav