Fun Time: Women--Know Your Limits

A fantastic film from the Harry Enfield Show. I can't tell you how many times this has happened to me.

Arts and Entertainment: Emerging Into Arrogance

Touchstone Magazine has on its website an interesting book review of "Faith of My Fathers: Conversations with Three Generations of Pastors About Church, Ministry, and Culture" by Chris Seay. Actually, to call it is more of a takedown than a review, but given some of the examples cited in the review it was deserved. Seay is the pastor of an "emergent" church who has published an ongoing dialog with his father and grandfathers who are also pastors. I will let you read the article for yourself instead of describing it in-depth, but am compelled to note that the review shows that self-righteousness and arrogance can emerge in this new movement.

On the same website but on a different topic, there is also a fun article by William McClay, a Humanities Chair at U of Tennessee, about how trying to be "unique" and "liberated from social conventions"--to show I am the smartest or must urbane person in the room--has become a new social convention. Well worth reading. By the way, I just subscribed to the magazine.

News: Bob Woodward on Iraq--It's Much Worse Than You Think

Famed investigative political reporter Bob Woodward is about to release a new book critical of the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war. The book states that US troops are facing over 800 attacks per week in Iraq (one wonders how an "attack" is defined), and that most intelligence estimates indicate that the situation is likely to get worse. Of course, one cannot discuss the book intelligently until it is released. However, if Woodward makes a persuasive case that the war in Iraq is going poorly and the book is widely read and discussed, the real question will be what should be done in lieu of the current prosecution of the war.

Misc: Champ Car World Series Crash--She's OK

This Sunday I was watching the Champ Car World Series race when this horrendous crash occurred. Katherine Legge, the driver of the car at the Road America road race in Wisconson amazingly was just fine after the wreck. The crash occurred when part of the rear wing of her car flew off, causing the car to lose downforce. Legge was heading into an S curve at 160 mph when she started skidding and went into the wall at full force. If you watch the video, you'll see the car disintegrate (as designed to absorb impact) and the cockpit with Legge rolling over and over on the grass. If Legge had been hurt, I wouldn't post it, but since she is OK I don't see any harm in it. By the way, AJ Allmendinger ended up winning the race.

Here is footage of the crash as it was broadcast here in the USA:



Here is the best slow motion footage of the crash:

Politics: The Blame Game

With the midterm elections two months away, it appears that culpability for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks is going to be a major issue. Bill Clinton went ballistic when Chris Wallace asked him whether his administration did enough to capture Osama Bin Laden, responding that he had tried and failed to get Bin Laden while the Bush administration effectively did not try and even ignored a comprehensive plan to get Bin Laden that the Clinton folks had left behind. This prompted a response from Condoleezza Rice that the Bush administration was at least as focused on terrorism as the Clinton administration had been, and that there was no comprehensive strategy left behind. It appears that both parties are going to try and pin 9/11 on the other, with Republicans attempting to make Democrats look feckless and weak, and Democrats attempting to make Republicans appear incompetent and unwise. The 9/11 Commission Report lays blame on both administrations for failing to prevent the attacks. Yet, in politics admitting to blame is generally considered political suicide, so that certainly won't happen.

In the end, most Americans I believe will blame both parties and both Clinton and Bush for the failure. The result will be that this issue will not be a particular winner for either side politically. The big question is whether the key foreign policy issue of this election is the war in Iraq, or prevention of future terrorism. If the electorate views the Iraq war as the key foreign policy issue, then Democrats will have an advantage. If the electorate is more concerned with preventing future terrorism, then the Republicans will be well served. Look to see which of these two issues (which are admittedly related) predominates over the next two months, as that will provide an indicator of how the national midterm elections will turn out.

Sports: Showing Fortitude

When watching sports, it is important to respect the displays of fortitude that we sometimes observe when athletes compete. This weekend, I had the pleasure of seeing two such displays. On Saturday, Notre Dame's football team was being dominated by Michigan State through much of the first half. This was occurring one week after ND had been humiliated by Michigan. As MSU was piling on the points in the first, ND could either give up their goals and effectively give up, or redouble their efforts to win the game. Notre Dame did the latter, and though their play improved late in the 2nd quarter, they were making little headway on the scoreboard, trailing by 16 after three quarters. The opportunity to be discouraged and doubt was apparent. The squad was playing better, but had not narrowed the defecit. Instead, Notre Dame continued to play hard and concentrate with the result being a stirring 40-37 comeback victory.

If Notre Dame was a profile in perserverance against doubt, Chris Simms' performance on Sunday in Tampa Bay's 26-24 loss to Carolina was an example of perserverance through physical pain and injury. After playing very poorly in two season-opening losses many people were doubting the ability and mental toughness of Simms. When Tampa Bay fell behind 17-0 in the first quarter, Simms could have folded, but instead his performance improved and he brought the Bucs back in the game. In the process, Simms took two vicious hits (one as he scored a touchdown, and another on an uncalled late hit on the next drive), one of which ruptured his spleen. Simms was unaware of what had happened to him. He continued to play after sitting out a few plays (for what appeared to be dehydration) and nearly led the Bucs to a win (Carolina won on a last second deep field goal). After the game, he was rushed to a Tampa hospital for an emergency surgery to remove his ruptured spleen. That Chris Simms continued to play is a testament to his competitive attitude and fortitude. The virtue of perserverance in difficult circumstances and amidst waves of doubt and even pain is one that each of us needs to cultivate. Though these sporting events were only games, they served as a reminder that sometimes perserverance is needed in order to do our duty, perform to the level we have been called, and hopefully accomplish our goals.

Christianity: Barna Group Study Shows Twentysomethings Leaving Church

Here is a disquieting article from The Barna Group that finds that most twentysomething Christians move away from the faith they practiced in their teenage years. According to the study 81% of teenagers say they've attended a church for at least 2 months in their teenage years. However, 61% of young adults who were significantly reached by a Christian community (likely through a youth group or similar ministry) during their teens are spiritually disengaged in their twenties. Only 20% who were churched as a teen remain spiritually active at age 29. Whether these folks generally come back to God in their 30's is being debated, but the fact remains that 3 out of 4 youths who the church reached in their teenage years walk away from the church in their college and early career years.

I'll leave it to each of you to interpret what this means about the Church's ministry, but I agree with the authors of the report that it appears to show that youth groups need to do a better job of discipling young Christians. I could hazard some opinions of some of the failures occuring in youth programs (lack of teaching youth how to think Christianly, segregating them from the church body and thus creating an unfamiliarity with the community of faith they will be in as they reach adulthood, not following up with them to help them join a college ministry). However, it would be unfair to lay the blame on youth groups. Additionally, many churches do a horrendous job of ministering to college students and young professionals, something that amounts to a catastrophic failure of discipleship. My friend Brian Cronin and others have also pointed to a yearning for community and friendships that are not being found in the church. This failure is greater than that of the youth groups, who by design cease their ministry after a high school graduation.

It can be argued that for most people, the two most significant choices in life are made in their twenties: (1) choice of education and career path (2) choice of a marriage partner or at least the type of person they want to marry. The Church, by failing to disciple and strongly reach out to men and women deciding these matters is proclaiming itself to be either irrelevant or disinterested regarding the core matters of a person's life. To quote the article: "These individuals are making significant life choices and determining the patterns and preferences of their spiritual reality while churches wait, generally in vain, for them to return after college or when the kids come. When and if young adults do return to churches, it is difficult to convince them that a passionate pursuit of Christ is anything more than a nice add-on to their cluttered lifestyle." No wonder these folks often consider Christianity an "add-on" to their lives--the body of Christ played no significant part in the major life decisions that formed much of who they are.

Funtime: Dog Lawyers

Clearly, there is a problem in America: dogs. Luckily, fellow lawyers are making sure that "man's best friend" is being held liable for his torts. I'll leave it to you to determine whether the real commerical or the fake one is funnier.

Arts & Entertainment: Megachurch Architecture

There isn't too much going on with regard to the arts that I am aware of, which is probably more of an indictment of me than anything. That being the case, I figured I'd share with you a pictoral survey of Megachurch architecture from Slate.com carried out by their architecture critic Witold Rybczynski. I found it to be quite educational, and I agree with his sense that much of the architecture fails to inspire the worshiper who enters them. Granted, it's not the most important thing about a church, but I do think it is helpful to a worshiper when a church evokes the grandeur of God.

Misc: Japanese Game Show

I believe that this was originally going to be the revamped format for the Scripps-Howard National Spelling Bee. I could be wrong. I note in passing that the Japanese are willing to subject themselves to treatment that is likely contrary to the Geneva Convention. At least this isn't disgusting like some of the game shows on US TV.

Hat tip to Jay Woodham who forwarded the video to me.

News: Paleologus Pope-pourri

Most everyone is aware of the controversy surrounding Pope Benedict XVI's address at the University of Regensburg of Sept. 12, 2006. Large numbers of Muslims have demanded an apology for a citation in the speech to the late 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel Paleologus who stated while in dialogue with an interlocutor, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The speech goes on to quote Paleologus: "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

In order to accurately understand the controversy, the following questions must be answered:

(1) What is the argument that Pope Benedict XVI made in his speech?
(2) Is his argument true? (or at least logically valid and potentially true in light of scripture)
(3) What was his purpose in making this argument?
(4) What was his purpose in including the quote from Manuel Paleologus that many Muslims found offensive?
(5) Was it prudent for the Pope to give the address as a whole, and to include the offending Paleologus quote?

The answers to these questions will indicate whether Pope Benedict acted properly in making the presentation that he did at the University of Regensburg. We will know if what he said is true (or at least could be true, or is worth inquiry), what his intent was, and whether he acted prudently as a practical matter. If his argument is true or worthy of consideration, his intent was good, and he acted with wisdom in giving his speech, he has no culpability. If defects can be found in any of these matters, then some level of criticism is legitimate and some degree of repentence for whatever mistakes were made is appropriate. The first step in making this determination is to understand what exactly the Pope said in his speech.

1. What is the argument that Pope Benedict XVI made in his speech?

• The topic of the speech is whether, "acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature...a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?" Paleologus argued that not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. Further, to use violence to compel faith does not make sense because human "faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats" Benedict states that Paleologus is correct in his contention that acting unreasonably is contrary to God's nature, backing up his position with John chapter 1 which states that in the beginning was the "word", which is the term logos--a term that means also reason and the word. As such, God is a rational, creative being that seeks to communicate with His creation. Benedict argues that God is not only rational, but also good, and that the right exercise of reason reveals what is good, or virtue. The history of Christianity's engagement with Greek philosophy then is an occurance that enables man to know God more truly and deeply, and also to know what it means to act virtuously.
• Benedict next discusses some trends in theology that he finds toubling because they have the effect of separating to at least some respect the joining of faith and reason. Benedict mentions the view that God's freedom means that he could have acted contrary than how he has, and the possibility that God's transcendance and otherness are so exalted that our own reason and ability to determine what is good cannot be relied on as a mirror of God's nature. Benedict states that these trends were strong in the Protestant tradition of "sola scriptura" which he states sought to find faith in its original form as found in the Bible, thus devaluing the the position of reason in faith. Eventually, this led to thinkers like Kant stating that he needed to set reason aside in order to make room for faith. When faith is divorced from reason, it can lead to the view that God transcends our senses of what is good and true.
• Benedict states that the Roman Catholic Church "has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV)." Benedict is stating that man can relate to and understand God (imperfectly but with a degree of accuracy leading to understanding despite our human limitations). However, in modern times (the 19th and 20th centuries) reason has been limited to where many believe it can only present truth in a limited sphere of inquiry. First, "only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific....Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity." Secondly, this method automatically excludes the question of God, and leads to the implication that the question is unscientific." Benedict states that this reduces "the radius of science and reason", a reduction that should be questioned. This reduction of the spheres in which science and reason may operate has grave consequences. If theology conforms to this definition of "scientific" the result is a reduction of Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. Additionally, man ends up being reduced, "for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science" and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate." Put another way, under this system we choose our beliefs and ethics based primarily on our life experiences and our conscience, without giving necessary thought as to whether our beliefs are true. A community that is concerned with questions of God and ethics and learns from one another is not teneble since the core of religious and ethical beliefs consists of experiences and the subjective conscience which others do not share.
  
• The Pope concludes by stating that reason must not be limited to empirically verifiable matters, nor should faith be divorced from reason. Pope Benedict closes with why it is important that reason is married to faith: "A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason...bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought -- to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding.

2. Is the Pope's argument true, or at least potentially true?

• At minimum, I believe that the Pope's argument is logically valid, although one might question his premises and the conclusion he draws. Whether each particular point he makes or example he draws in the speech is likely debatable and worthy of debate. Within the sphere of Christian theology and philosophy, his argument certainly appears to have merit. If God is a God of reason, and we are made in his image, then it is certainly possible that he wants us to use our reason as a tool of knowing Him more truly. Equally so, to the extent that a religion or worldview states that God is wholly separate from man and essentially unknowable, then a Christian should question that worldview, as the Christian God is one who took on flesh, dwelt among us, and reconciles us to God, and in fact dwells in those who are reconciled to God via the Holy Spirit. In the matter of morals, it is certainly worth investigating whether our reason means that we can in some sense comprehend the God who is good, and thus have an understanding of what the good is in our lives and what God truly desires. For these reasons, I believe that Pope Benedict acted properly in raising these issues.

3. What was the Pope's Purpose in making this speech?

• If the Pope sought to actively insult Muslims, or to cause violence, then he acted wrongly. However, the text of the speech and the argument as a whole do not point towards this as the overarching purpose of his address. Instead, the purpose was to address the interrelation of faith and reason; to state that God is both rational and good, and that in order to both know God and know what good is (and thus God's will) we must exercise our reason. He also states that what is considered rational cannot be limited to merely questions that can be empirically answered, for to do so means to fail to engage questions regarding the purpose of life. These purposes are good and noble, and thus one should not find the Pope guilty of an evil intent in making his speech.

(4) What was his purpose in including the quote from Manuel Paleologus that many Muslims found offensive?

• I think that the quotation of Paleologus was introduced for the purpose of giving a concrete historical example of the danger that results from relying on force and not reason in doing God's will and spreading His word. Certain segments of Islam, and the leadership of many Islamic countries have accepted the use of violence as being God's will. Pope Benedict could have taken a specific modern example out of saystatements of Bin Laden, but in doing so, his point may have been considered limited to him. However, he did not want to impugn all of modern Islam and its adherents. Thus, he drew a historical example that explained why Manuel Paleologus was debating issues of faith and reason. Throughout much of Paleologus' reign, he was occupied with defending the remnants of the Byzantine empire and Constantinople from Muslim attacks. (One begins to understand why the Emperor was hyperbolic regarding Islam.) To the extent that adherents of any religion, but here specifically Islam, use violence to spread the faith and do God's will, they bring things evil and inhuman. However, where Benedict failed in his speech is in failing to explain the context of Paleologus' quote being from a man who was constantly defending his city against Muslim attackers. Also, the Pope should have been clear that Paleologus' quote that Islam has only brought evil was false. However, to the extent that the sword is used to spread the faith (in the name of any religion) then this is contrary to God's will and does lead to things evil and inhuman.

(5) Was it prudent for the Pope to give the address as a whole, and to include the offending Paleologus quote?

• I believe that giving the address certainly was prudent and acceptable, but that the Pope's failure to fully explain the context of the Paleologus quote was not prudent. Thus, the clarification that the Pope made stating that the offending quote was not his belief, and his regret that he offended some Muslims was appropriate. The rest of the speech is nothing that should be apologized for, and in fact the offensive quote provides an example (when understood in historical context) of the very real issue of using violence rather than reason and love to spread religion.
  

Politics: Power of the Pump...And Maybe 9/11 Too

Gasoline prices are dropping, and whenever I pass a gas station and see that the prices have dropped further I grin slightly and think to myself some combination of "that's good" and "it's about time." Doing some very rough calculations, I note that in an average month I use around 40 gallons of gas, thus the drop in prices from the $3.15 level down to around $2.35 saves me around $30-$35 per month. Not an insubstantial amount, particularly for a person who receives a paltry salary from the Florida Senate. However, it is also fair to say that it is not a life-changing event, even for a person who uses twice the gasoline I do and may save up to $60 per month.

It is interesting to note that this week, President Bush's poll numbers appear to be on an upswing and currently stand at 44 percent. The poll numbers coincide not only with dropping gasoline prices but also with the national remembrance of the 9/11 attacks last weekend. I believe that both are factors in the upswing for Presidential support, but am inclined to think that in the November elections, gasoline prices may play a more important part in determining which party enjoys success, particularly if the numbers in the same survey showing an even split over whether the Iraq war was a mistake are not an aberration after the 9/11 remembrances. Service station signs are ubiquitous wherever a person goes, and driving along a road seeing sign after sign of drastically dropping prices after a previous surge in pricing is a constant repetitive statement that "things are improving." History proves that Americans generally vote their pocketbooks, all else being equal. Gas is the one commodity that almost every voter purchases, and it also has the most visible pricing signs of any item. Although larger economic issues, and foreign policy issues should be the primary issues of this election, do not underestimate the effect of gas prices on the result. If prices at the pump continue to drop over the next two months, those gas station price signs will send a subtle message to voters that causes them to think "things are getting better lately", a message that helps incumbents.

Sports: Slouching Towards Mediocrity

Clemson's 27-20 victory over FSU at Doak Campbell Stadium on Saturday was not surprising, other than the fact that Florida State remained close in a game in which it was largely outplayed. If not for a blocked extra point returned for a safety and a blocked field goal returned for a touchdown, the 'Noles would have found themselves down 17-0 at halftime, and likely would have lost by at least two touchdowns. Six years ago, an FSU loss at home to a good (but certainly not great) opponent at home would have been a shock. This year, it was expected, as most people I spoke with last week expected FSU to lose, including myself. A sort of malaise has hit the fans, who are resigned to the fact that Bobby Bowden will not remove his son Jeff from the Offensive Coordinator's job. I would not call it indifference, but most people have come to terms with the fact that FSU is no longer an elite program. This may not be a wholly bad thing, as there are more important matters in life. One positive is that circumventions of the Florida law that guards against nepotism in state hiring practices are now in public disfavor, as the wisdom of that statutory provision is demonstrated during most Saturdays during the fall.

The Blog is Back

Hello everyone, I have decided to make this blog active again, and plan to have a new post up each day of the week. Each day will have a new topic. Monday-Sports, Tuesday-Politics, Wednesday-News, Thursday-Wildcard, Friday-Arts and Entertainment, Saturday-Funtime, Sunday-Christianity. Feel free to comment, though I reserve the right to delete your comment if the language is salty or the content abhorrent. Thanks for checking things out and I hope to hear from you.