The Bosque Boys

An article on Jackie Robinson's Christian faith. From Good News Magazine.

From Shot in the Dark, an overview of periods in popular music--the good, the bad, and the merely ugly. He offers an interesting survey.

"Human life is the basis of all goods, and is the necessary source and condition of every human activity and of all society."* In other words, to deprive you of life is to deprive you of all rights and of all possibilities on earth. Therefore, we as a society have held that the taking of a human life is serious, momentous, and radical. We offer extensive appeals on the death penalty to ensure that an innocent human life is not taken. We punish murder and manslaughter. We do not enter into war quickly or willingly, and observe rules of warfare. Our accepted social norms recognize the unique importance of a human life, and the seriousness of taking it.

Were we consistent, we would not be having the current debate on embryonic stem-cell research. Is an embryo an innocent human life? If you answer "yes", then you must oppose killing the embryo in order to extract stem cells. If you answer "no", then I challenge you to prove your position. Prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that an embryo is not an innocent human life.

You see, the burden of proof is on the one who would take an innocent human life, who would kill. We would bring charges against someone who threw a grenade into a room, killing those within. If that person argued that he was unaware that anyone was in the room, he still would be charged with manslaughter. If you are going to demolish a building by explosion, the burden is on you to make sure that no one is in the building before you detonate the explosives. Society expects that you will search the building, fence the building, and search again immediately before detonation. Society expects that we will take active steps so as not to kill.

Since human life is the basis of all other goods so that the taking of a human life is momentously radical, those who would "harvest" human embryos must prove they are not killing innocent human life.

* Quoted from the Declaration on Euthanasia by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Back in June, during the last kerfuffle, I offered this brief assessment of Ann Coulter:

Quoting myself quoting myself:

Back on March 2 (on the ancien regime blog--and before the current kerfuffle), I offered this brief assessment of Ann Coulter:

Quoting Myself: "I think she is often uproariously funny and sometimes very insightful, but I also think she can be crude and mean-spirited. Although I give her credit for outwitting Katie Couric (in all seriousness, that was a bravura performance), I think Coulter is something akin to our Maureen Dowd (funny, attractive, possessing a rapier wit but lacking compassion and judgment). Ann Coulter, for me, will forever be the woman who judged John Roberts unfit for the Supreme Court and attempted to reinvent Joe McCarthy as a great American hero."

You get the point: we have been here before.

Ann Coulter is serially inappropriate and often completely erroneous. Last summer, detractors presented evidence against her charging plagiarism.

Having said that, I will refrain from the feeding frenzy fueled by conservative self-righteous indignation.

Why?

1. Our vigilance in pursuit of this hysterical exercise proves correct her assertion that we are all becoming zealots in persecuting semantic transgressions. Joe Biden? George Allen? We are a community of glass-house residents; we ought to discourage stone-chunking mobs.

2. There are plenty of reasons to disown Ann Coulter. I did it long ago. But this posse, formed as a result of a singularly offensive remark, is disproportionate and cowardly. Evaluate Ann Coulter on her body of work. Dissociate yourself from her brand of politics and provocation. Bravo. But let us renounce this increasingly prevalent practice of purging veteran public figures from the body politic because of a momentary albeit egregious lapse in public etiquette.

This Open Letter to CPAC Sponsors and Organizers Regarding Ann Coulter doesn't pass the "ick" test for me. Gentleman, you will have to ride without me on this necktie party.

Good, clear thinking on stem cell research from the Orthodox Bishops.

Here is a portion:

From the perspective of Orthodox Christianity, human life begins at conception (meaning fertilization with creation of the single-cell zygote). This conviction is grounded in the Biblical witness (e.g., Ps 139:13-16; Isaiah 49:1ff; Luke 1:41,44), as well as in the scientifically established fact that from conception there exists genetic uniqueness and cellular differentiation that, if the conceptus is allowed to develop normally, will produce a live human being. ( 1 ) Human life is sacred from its very beginning, since from conception it is ensouled existence. As such, it is "personal" existence, created in the image of God and endowed with a sanctity that destines it for eternal life.
. . .
In the first place, debate on this issue has too often overlooked the fact that among the most vocal proponents of embryo research are pro-abortion activists, supported by much of the media. If the government refuses to fund such research, it would thereby tacitly acknowledge that human life begins at conception. This flies in the face of abortion legislation such as Roe v. Wade and would inevitably undermine the view that an embryo is merely a clump of tissue and can therefore be aborted on demand with no moral consequences. The real issue underlying the debate, then, is less the development of potential therapies than the preservation of so-called "abortion rights." ( 3 )

Second, enormous pressures to legalize and federally fund embryonic stem cell research is coming from the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, because of the promise of nearly limitless profits. The "new medicine" based on stem cell therapies is largely driven by the marketplace. As with AIDS medications and other recently developed therapies, market forces will determine who has access to them, and at what cost.

Read the entire letter (it's not too long).

One of the toxic aspects of our culture is the way that younger and younger girls are sexualized. Media images of women are mostly as sexual beings. Sexual encounters first happen at younger and younger ages. You may have seen some media reporting on the recent release of the American Psychological Association findings. We are damaging the vulnerable children of our culture. Here is the APA release, with a link to the full report. Some excerpts from the Executive Summary:

Journalists, child advocacy organizations, parents, and psychologists have argued that the sexualization of girls is a broad and increasing problem and is harmful to girls.The APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls was formed in response to these expressions of public concern.
. . .
There are several components to sexualization, and these set it apart from healthy sexuality. Sexualization occurs when


a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;

a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or

sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person. All four conditions need not be present; any one is an indication of sexualization.The fourth condition (the inappropriate imposition of sexuality) is especially relevant to children.Anyone (girls, boys, men, women) can be sexualized.

But when children are imbued with adult sexuality, it is often imposed upon them rather than chosen by them. Self-motivated sexual exploration, on the other hand, is not sexualization by our definition, nor is age-appropriate exposure to information about sexuality.
. . .
Psychology offers several theories to explain how the sexualization of girls and women could influence girls’ well-being. Ample evidence testing these theories indicates that sexualization has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, sexuality, and attitudes and beliefs. (Emphasis mine.)

What is wrong with a degree of censorship?

My heart goes out to Britney Spears. She is a comment on us and the society we have made.

What happens when a teenage girl from Kenner, Louisiana, with virtually no education, is suddenly thrust into the national spotlight and told continuously by millions that she is the most important person in the world?

Britney Spears, 1999.

What happens when the intoxication recedes?

Britney Spears in 2007.

Celebrity truly is the song of the Sirens for the current age.

This morning in the Grungebuggy (the old van I and the dogs drive down to the creek in) I caught just a bit of talk radio. All I heard was the conservative host stating that government has no business trying to teach values in our schools. Teaching values is the job of the family.

I do not know what prompted the statement. Probably the host was objecting to politically correct indoctrination. But, whatever the prompt, the statement goes overboard. There is no education without values. I say this as a teacher with experience in Middle School, High School, and College.

Imagine a classroom. Now, try to imagine a classroom with no values being taught. I can't. To create a good learning environment every teacher has a few rules: Don't talk when someone else has the floor. Don't cheat on exams. Do the work on time. These rules reflect and teach values--mutual respect, honesty, responsibility. An educational environment cannot be values-neutral.

For education to occur certain character virtues are necessary, and must be taught and/or reinforced. Patience. Persistence. Self-discipline. Humility. Love of truth.

Perhaps the question we need to ask ourselves is this: can a post-modern, politically correct, consumerist, secular society support the values and virtues that make education possible? I have always been a strong supporter of public schools. But, in the last few years I have wondered if in the future I would not be supporting parochial education instead.

Today is President's Day. Is your flag flying?

In the recent past Americans debated what is called theodicy. That is, why did God permit evil? How can a good and loving God permit bad things to happen? Where was God when we hurt? Further back in our past, when God was understood to be a mysterious, holy and righteous judge of men and nations, another question also was asked: for what sins is God punishing us? What purposes is the Almighty working out in the evil that has befallen us?

Since modern Americans tend to view God as indulgently loving, we tend not to ask the latter questions, and to shout down those who might. (Witness the criticism Falwell and Robertson faced after they suggested that 9/11 was a judgment from God on our sins.)

We also tend not to debate theodicy much anymore. Our questions are more like--why did the government not save us from the horror of Hurricane Katrina? why did the government allow Osama bin Laden to build a terror network against us? how can the government allow dysfunctional schools to exist? why hasn't the government eliminated poverty and cancer and unemployment? why has the government made such a mess in Iraq?

Often, especially for major disasters like Katrina and in foreign policy, we specifically question the president. Why didn't Bush save New Orleans? Where was Bush when disaster struck the 9th Ward? Why did Bush cause war or terrorism or global warming? Why did Bush make a mess in Iraq?

The underlying assumption to these questions is that this one man, the president of the United States, has the power to bend reality to his will, to make the world conform to his wishes. We don't argue theodicy because we attribute the powers of divinity (good or evil) to the occupant of the oval office. When my candidate (Hillary, Edwards, Obama, et al) ascends to the office of power, then the golden age will begin.

Presidents have power, but they are not God.

I have been at four funerals in the last week and a half, conducting one and attending three. Three were Comanche, one was Caddo and Comanche. Three were Christian services all held in churches, one was mixed Christian and Native American Church held in the gym of the Comanche Tribal Center.

Here are some things I like about the conduct of these funerals, typical for our area. (more below)

» Read More