14/09: The Pope's Recent Speech
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Pope Benedict XVI recently gave a speech that has angered some Muslims. The Vatican now has put an English translation of his lecture online here. The title is "Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections"
The speech, overall, is a very strong argument for the place of a theological faculty within a university, for the intrinsic link between reason and faith, and a criticism of the modern restriction of reason to a scientific positivism. I heartily recommend a careful reading of this lecture.
This is the part that inflames Muslims (cont. below).
The speech, overall, is a very strong argument for the place of a theological faculty within a university, for the intrinsic link between reason and faith, and a criticism of the modern restriction of reason to a scientific positivism. I heartily recommend a careful reading of this lecture.
This is the part that inflames Muslims (cont. below).
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
The previous post on tax-credits has generated discussion about big-spending government in which politicians use tax money to buy votes by "bringing home the bacon" for their districts and states. Currently members of Congress can do this vote-buying with little publicity or accountability. Now, thanks to a push by concerned citizens, with major energy coming from conservative bloggers, we may, like the Progressives of old, be about to shine a light into the dark corners of government corruption. The below is copied from Instapundit.
PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: The earmark reform legislation has passed the House (identical legislation was already passed in the Senate) so it's now heading to the President's desk. Here's an email from the Majority Whip's office:
WASHINGTON---Legislation championed by House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis (Va.) to increase budget accountability and transparency by establishing a public database to track federal grants and contracts passed the House tonight by voice vote. . . .
The federal government awards approximately $300 billion in grants to roughly 30,000 different organizations annually. Each year, roughly one million contracts exceed the $25,000 reporting threshold. The Blunt-Davis bill will ensure that those expenditures are readily accessible to the media, the public, and Members of Congress.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act will:
Eliminate Wasteful Spending by empowering everyone with access to the internet to begin reviewing federal grants and other forms of taxpayer assistance for waste, fraud, and abuse;
Ensure Compliance with Federal Law by requiring grantees to also disclose their subgrantees, and
Ensure Compliance with Lobbying Restrictions by identifying entities receiving federal grants that would be subject to lobbying restrictions in existing law.
With House passage of S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, and the enrollment correction containing the House-Senate compromise agreement, the final bill will now go to the president for his signature.
It's not the end of the fight against pork, but it's certainly a very significant step. Congratulations to everyone involved!
PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: The earmark reform legislation has passed the House (identical legislation was already passed in the Senate) so it's now heading to the President's desk. Here's an email from the Majority Whip's office:
WASHINGTON---Legislation championed by House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis (Va.) to increase budget accountability and transparency by establishing a public database to track federal grants and contracts passed the House tonight by voice vote. . . .
The federal government awards approximately $300 billion in grants to roughly 30,000 different organizations annually. Each year, roughly one million contracts exceed the $25,000 reporting threshold. The Blunt-Davis bill will ensure that those expenditures are readily accessible to the media, the public, and Members of Congress.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act will:
Eliminate Wasteful Spending by empowering everyone with access to the internet to begin reviewing federal grants and other forms of taxpayer assistance for waste, fraud, and abuse;
Ensure Compliance with Federal Law by requiring grantees to also disclose their subgrantees, and
Ensure Compliance with Lobbying Restrictions by identifying entities receiving federal grants that would be subject to lobbying restrictions in existing law.
With House passage of S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, and the enrollment correction containing the House-Senate compromise agreement, the final bill will now go to the president for his signature.
It's not the end of the fight against pork, but it's certainly a very significant step. Congratulations to everyone involved!
14/09: Iowa 1st Dictrict Race
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
The Des Moines Register has a good article summarizing the current status of this House race in which the Democrats have a good chance to pick up a Republican seat. The Republican incumbant is not seeking reelection, but is in the race for Iowa governor. Read article.
One of the crucial Senate races this fall is in Missouri where Republican incumbant Jim Talent is under a strong challenge by Democrat Claire McCaskill. See my earlier post on the race.
This week McCaskill gave a phone interview to reporters in which she made the following plan: give first-time home-buyers a tax credit; give parents of children in college a tax credit or deduction; give parents a child-care credit. (She also expressed the party-line that Republican tax cuts only benefit the rich.) See the article from the Kansas City Star.
Her assumption, and the Democrat assumption, seems to be that our money belongs to the government. They will give some of it back, or not take as much, if we do what they think is best with the money. Why not make it simpler: let us keep more of our money! Lower government spending and lower taxes and let the citizens decide how to spend their money. Plus, as I have pointed out here, high taxes undercut the American strength of voluntary societies.
Her proposals encourage mothers to work outside the home: why not cut taxes and help traditional families make the choice they want to make. And, tax credits for tuition do not benefit families with no children, nor do they benefit families whose children are not college-bound, nor do they benefit families whose children enlist in the military ceasing to be dependents. (Actually, her proposal helps to undercut one of the important tools the military has for recruiting.)
This week McCaskill gave a phone interview to reporters in which she made the following plan: give first-time home-buyers a tax credit; give parents of children in college a tax credit or deduction; give parents a child-care credit. (She also expressed the party-line that Republican tax cuts only benefit the rich.) See the article from the Kansas City Star.
Her assumption, and the Democrat assumption, seems to be that our money belongs to the government. They will give some of it back, or not take as much, if we do what they think is best with the money. Why not make it simpler: let us keep more of our money! Lower government spending and lower taxes and let the citizens decide how to spend their money. Plus, as I have pointed out here, high taxes undercut the American strength of voluntary societies.
Her proposals encourage mothers to work outside the home: why not cut taxes and help traditional families make the choice they want to make. And, tax credits for tuition do not benefit families with no children, nor do they benefit families whose children are not college-bound, nor do they benefit families whose children enlist in the military ceasing to be dependents. (Actually, her proposal helps to undercut one of the important tools the military has for recruiting.)
USA today carries a good report on research underway by Baylor University sociologists and the Gallup organization on the religious beliefs of Americans. One finding: the view of God held by a person is a much better predictor of positions on public issues than denominational affiliation. The researchers have grouped the results into 4 basic categories of how God is viewed: "These Four Gods — dubbed by researchers Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical or Distant — tell more about people's social, moral and political views and personal piety than the familiar categories of Protestant/Catholic/Jew or even red state/blue state." For example, those who see God as Authoritarian are more likely to support conservative Christian positions in politics. Also, different regions of the U.S. tend to have different proportions of views of God. Read Article.
This survey seems to lend support to some observations I made in Part 2 of my series of posts on Religion and Public Policy.
This survey seems to lend support to some observations I made in Part 2 of my series of posts on Religion and Public Policy.
The problem with capitalism is capitalists. I don't know who first said this, but I believe it more strongly every day. "Anything for a Buck" capitalists are a danger to everything good.
Read this damning article from Business Week Online about American companies helping the Chinese government control their own people. (Warning: take your blood pressure meds first) Hat tip Nordinger NRO.
A teaser: "Despite the improvement of its image on the world stage, China still has a dismal human rights record. The U.S. State Dept. says that the Communist government is holding at least 260,000 people in ideological "reeducation" camps. Among those detained are pro-democracy activists and members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, which the government considers an illegal cult. U.S. technology has been used at least indirectly to improve the government's ability to identify Falun Gong adherents, according to Hao Fengjun, a former security official who has fled China for Australia.
Some American companies have gone out of their way to appeal to the Chinese government's pronounced concern about avoiding unrest. In Chinese-language brochures distributed at a police-technology trade show in Shanghai in 2002, Cisco repeatedly referred to its gear with such phrases as "strengthening police control" and "increasing social stability." Cisco, based in San Jose, Calif., says there's nothing unusual about its marketing in China. "We sell to police organizations in many countries," says Rick Justice, senior vice-president for worldwide operations. "We do business [in China] the way we do business anywhere.""
I thought we were to be on the side of democracy and liberty in the world?
Read this damning article from Business Week Online about American companies helping the Chinese government control their own people. (Warning: take your blood pressure meds first) Hat tip Nordinger NRO.
A teaser: "Despite the improvement of its image on the world stage, China still has a dismal human rights record. The U.S. State Dept. says that the Communist government is holding at least 260,000 people in ideological "reeducation" camps. Among those detained are pro-democracy activists and members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, which the government considers an illegal cult. U.S. technology has been used at least indirectly to improve the government's ability to identify Falun Gong adherents, according to Hao Fengjun, a former security official who has fled China for Australia.
Some American companies have gone out of their way to appeal to the Chinese government's pronounced concern about avoiding unrest. In Chinese-language brochures distributed at a police-technology trade show in Shanghai in 2002, Cisco repeatedly referred to its gear with such phrases as "strengthening police control" and "increasing social stability." Cisco, based in San Jose, Calif., says there's nothing unusual about its marketing in China. "We sell to police organizations in many countries," says Rick Justice, senior vice-president for worldwide operations. "We do business [in China] the way we do business anywhere.""
I thought we were to be on the side of democracy and liberty in the world?
Should U.S. public policy reflect viewpoints arrived at because of religious beliefs?
Prompted by the spirited debate on this blog over the issue of same-sex marriage and public policy, I began a series of posts on my view of the proper relationship between religion and public policy, including debate in the public square of the United States. In my first post I approached the issue from a historical perspective here. In the second post I approached it from a philosophical and observational angle here. Now I want to take a look from a theological perspective.
But first, no apologies, a little history. Christianity's parent religion, Judaism, made no fundamental distinction between religious life and ordinary life. The religious community was the tribe and eventually the nation; In this respect the Jews were like about everyone else in the premodern world. The Jewish prophets went beyond what was usually seen in paganism and held the people and the rulers accountable to the Law in all aspects of life from diet to care for the poor: ethics was firmly a part of religion. When Christianity arose as a minority sect within Judaism, it arose within an existing Greco-Roman society. The New Testament, perhaps because of an expectation of the immanent return of Jesus and the fact that "not many mighty" were Christians, contains no explicit call to conform the larger society to Christian beliefs and practices. Instead, the community is to live according to its own moral code within the larger society whose laws it is to obey except where these conflict with Christian morals. But, when Christianity grew larger and obtained a privilaged place within the Roman Empire, the relationship between public policy and Christian faith had to be revisited. Short summary: in the Eastern Empire (Byzantine) church and state formed a complex whole under the leadership of the emperor; in the fragmenting Western Empire, power within the church consolidated under the Bishop of Rome (pope) who engaged in power struggles with the various rulers, all the while advocating the position that all of life must be brought under the rule of Christ. Similar positions obtained in other Christian kingdoms such as Ethiopia and Armenia. Theologically, to summarize crudely, this change was justified on grounds such as the Lordship of Christ over all Creation, and the growth of God's Kingdom. Outside these areas in places such as along the Silk Road to China and in the Persian Empire, Christian communities continued the earlier pattern of living as small communities with little power. In the West, the Protestant Reformation did not basically challenge the organic nature of society--linking public policy and Christianity (though Luther's theology separates the two more than Calvin's), except for some of the small and persecuted Radical groups who did advocate a separation of church and government. When the story gets to America, see my first post. My own view is below.
Prompted by the spirited debate on this blog over the issue of same-sex marriage and public policy, I began a series of posts on my view of the proper relationship between religion and public policy, including debate in the public square of the United States. In my first post I approached the issue from a historical perspective here. In the second post I approached it from a philosophical and observational angle here. Now I want to take a look from a theological perspective.
But first, no apologies, a little history. Christianity's parent religion, Judaism, made no fundamental distinction between religious life and ordinary life. The religious community was the tribe and eventually the nation; In this respect the Jews were like about everyone else in the premodern world. The Jewish prophets went beyond what was usually seen in paganism and held the people and the rulers accountable to the Law in all aspects of life from diet to care for the poor: ethics was firmly a part of religion. When Christianity arose as a minority sect within Judaism, it arose within an existing Greco-Roman society. The New Testament, perhaps because of an expectation of the immanent return of Jesus and the fact that "not many mighty" were Christians, contains no explicit call to conform the larger society to Christian beliefs and practices. Instead, the community is to live according to its own moral code within the larger society whose laws it is to obey except where these conflict with Christian morals. But, when Christianity grew larger and obtained a privilaged place within the Roman Empire, the relationship between public policy and Christian faith had to be revisited. Short summary: in the Eastern Empire (Byzantine) church and state formed a complex whole under the leadership of the emperor; in the fragmenting Western Empire, power within the church consolidated under the Bishop of Rome (pope) who engaged in power struggles with the various rulers, all the while advocating the position that all of life must be brought under the rule of Christ. Similar positions obtained in other Christian kingdoms such as Ethiopia and Armenia. Theologically, to summarize crudely, this change was justified on grounds such as the Lordship of Christ over all Creation, and the growth of God's Kingdom. Outside these areas in places such as along the Silk Road to China and in the Persian Empire, Christian communities continued the earlier pattern of living as small communities with little power. In the West, the Protestant Reformation did not basically challenge the organic nature of society--linking public policy and Christianity (though Luther's theology separates the two more than Calvin's), except for some of the small and persecuted Radical groups who did advocate a separation of church and government. When the story gets to America, see my first post. My own view is below.
The current Pope understands the need to respond to Islamic violence. He made some interesting remarks in a recent lecture, according to Newsmax. The opening paragraphs of this article are below. The full-text of the lecture does not yet seem to be on the Vatican website.
"Pope Benedict XVI invited Muslims on Tuesday to join a dialogue of cultures based on the premise that the concept of an Islamic "holy war" is unreasonable and against God's nature.
In a major lecture at Regensburg University, where he taught theology between 1969 to 1977, Benedict said Christianity is tightly linked to reason and contrasted this view with those who believe in spreading their faith by the sword.
The 79-year-old Pontiff avoided making a direct criticism of Islam, packaging his comments in a highly complex academic lecture with references ranging from ancient Jewish and Greek thinking to Protestant theology and modern atheism.
In his lecture, the Pope quoted, among others, the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologos who wrote that Mohammad had brought things "only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The Pope, who used the terms "jihad" and "holy war" in his lecture, added in his own words: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul"."
"Pope Benedict XVI invited Muslims on Tuesday to join a dialogue of cultures based on the premise that the concept of an Islamic "holy war" is unreasonable and against God's nature.
In a major lecture at Regensburg University, where he taught theology between 1969 to 1977, Benedict said Christianity is tightly linked to reason and contrasted this view with those who believe in spreading their faith by the sword.
The 79-year-old Pontiff avoided making a direct criticism of Islam, packaging his comments in a highly complex academic lecture with references ranging from ancient Jewish and Greek thinking to Protestant theology and modern atheism.
In his lecture, the Pope quoted, among others, the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologos who wrote that Mohammad had brought things "only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The Pope, who used the terms "jihad" and "holy war" in his lecture, added in his own words: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul"."
I watched the president's address this evening, and thought it was good. When the address came on I flipped over to C-SPAN (I was watching the ABC docudrama Path to 9/11), then flipped back to ABC after the address. I was just in time to see and hear George Stephanopoulis (does anyone but me ever have the urge to reach out and smack him up-side the head?) offer his analysis of the speech--all he could talk about was the speech in relation to the upcoming Congressional elections; in other words, he only discussed it as a political event, not as a wartime address in the context of the ongoing dangers. What an unserious response!
Ordinarily I avoid anything like a "docudrama", not wanting to clutter my mind with images and conversations that may not be historically accurate. I only decided to watch Path to 9/11 because of the attempts by the Clinton adminstration lawyers and others to block the release, or at least modify it. My personal reaction to the drama was that I thought it stuck pretty well to what we know (and who knows what we will never know thanks to folks like Sandy "Oops it's accidentally in my Pants" Berger). At the least, it was a good reminder that we are at war with religiously motivated folks who want to kill us in the name of their god. (Did you notice that the shooting targets in the Al Qaeda training camp had crosses painted on them?)
Ordinarily I avoid anything like a "docudrama", not wanting to clutter my mind with images and conversations that may not be historically accurate. I only decided to watch Path to 9/11 because of the attempts by the Clinton adminstration lawyers and others to block the release, or at least modify it. My personal reaction to the drama was that I thought it stuck pretty well to what we know (and who knows what we will never know thanks to folks like Sandy "Oops it's accidentally in my Pants" Berger). At the least, it was a good reminder that we are at war with religiously motivated folks who want to kill us in the name of their god. (Did you notice that the shooting targets in the Al Qaeda training camp had crosses painted on them?)
In 1565 the Muslim Turks invaded the island of Malta. In that year a relatively small group of Knights of St. John (Hospitallers) plus the island's population held out against, and finally defeated, the superior attacking force. This was one of the many battles between Christian Europeans and Muslims in the centuries after the rise of Islam. The War did not start on Sept. 11, 2001. Our current conflict is a part of the nearly 1400 year-long battle between Islam and everyone else. (We shouldn't be so Euro-centric: ask Christian Ethiopia and Hindu India about this long war.)
The story of the island's defense is given here..
Also, this week is the anniversary of the relief of the siege of Vienna in 1683 by the Poles. The Muslim Turks were pushing into Central Europe (again), occupying Hungary, and laying siege to Vienna. After a difficult resistance by the city aided by other European groups, a Christian Polish army arrived and defeated the Turks.
The story of the island's defense is given here..
Also, this week is the anniversary of the relief of the siege of Vienna in 1683 by the Poles. The Muslim Turks were pushing into Central Europe (again), occupying Hungary, and laying siege to Vienna. After a difficult resistance by the city aided by other European groups, a Christian Polish army arrived and defeated the Turks.
