Two Americas (give or take about 300 million)

John Edwards is back at it again - not only running for president but resurrecting the same "Two Americas" theme that did not resonate a few years earlier:

Edwards said no city better symbolizes the "two Americas" -- haves and have-nots -- that he spoke about during his 2004 campaign.

Political America may be divisble into two parts, but it is not the haves and have-nots, it is the moral and immoral. The rich/poor dichotomy does not work: Republicans are both greedy Corporate leaders and Nascar fans; Democrats are both rich trial lawyers like John Edwards and the Ninth Ward residents that Edwards is using for political gain. The moral/immoral divide is what separates voters: the dignity of life, the role of the family, etc., are the key issues, not economics.

But the the Edwards mind-set* is not one that seeks to unite the two Americas of morality, but to splinter it into millions of pieces--about 300 million pieces to be more precise. According to the liberal's "sweet mystery of life" mantra, there can not be one united America:

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

When you offer everyone the right to define their own concept of existence, you are not trying to unite the country. Edwards can run on whatever foolish platform he wishes, I only suggest he use a new, more accurate slogan to describe the America he envisions.

----------------
*the typical liberal mind-set anyway. Perhaps it is unfair to state that this is exactly what Edwards believes, although his views on abortion, for example, suggest that I have not overstepped the boundaries of reckless blogging into the realm of libel.

Christmas Warrior

So, the self-labelled culture warrior is trying to save Christmas. On his radio program, he stated that Christmas and particularly any Christian meaning of Christmas is being removed from our society. He then segued into a commercial where he promoted his new book and other merchandise as perfect Christmas gifts. Lesson one for the culture warrior: Please don't lecture us about the problems with the new secular, material Christmas and then try and make money off of the same idea!

Required Christmas reading here, here, and here.

Yes, Qahal, there is a Santa Claus

Although I generally concur with my esteemed co-blogger, I must (sort-of) disagree with his post below about Santa Claus. I don't really disagree with him, because he does say that the fairy tales are fine (just don't say Santa actually delivered the goods this year) and he does seek to bring the focus back to Christ. Qahal's focus on the One True Myth as a story surpassing all other myths sounds a little like C.S. Lewis's realization that lead to his conversion, so I guess I do agree with that much of the post.

However, I will stick with Lewis, Tolkien, Chesterton, etc. on the importance and value of other myths (including Santa, of course). There is a recent article in Touchstone discussing why "Training Up a Child Requires a Well-Formed Imagination"(article not on line, but here is a discussion of it). It is a fantastic read -- Qahal, you can borrow my copy. And of course, the essential Christmas reading is this little letter to Viginia. Read that and tell me it isn't the greatest thing ever written -- and I would say, until Qahal and Augustine prove me wrong that is, that this article does not lie to the little girl ("Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies!"). There may not be an actual fat man in a red suit who lives at the North Pole, but Santa Claus -- that is something real.

I can understand the concern that a child who learns that his parents have been lying about Santa may be devastated, but not so the child who has been born into the wonder of Beatrix Potter, the Chronicles of Narnia, and other fairy stories. Yes, Christ first, because Christ is the only story that is real, but other stories that are creations of the creature created by God still have a place in the child's life. Here is a supplemental read.

The Naughty List

Continuing on my holiday theme. I will use this story from today's headlines as a starting point.

I think what the teachers did in this story is pretty darn stupid, and I don't mean to apologize for them in any way by my comments. Really I don't even care about the story itself. I really want to ask the question: Why do we tell our children that Santa Clause is real?

Here are a few quick thoughts:

1) Technically, in true Augustinian harshness, parents are lying to their children.

2) Not one single child in the history of the world has ever had a good experience when discovering the truth about Santa Clause. (perhaps this is a gross overstatement, but I will use the outrage of the above story as my proof)

3) The best and most frequent reason I hear for promoting the fable - its fun

Not to get too carried away, I will qualify my comments slightly. I'm not saying take away the stories about Santa, the books, movies and music. They can be viewed like many other children's stories, as wonderful narratives that exercise their imaginations and promote positive morals. I'm also not saying that the parents can't stay up incredibly late to set up all the toys so that the children will fall asleep with eager anticipation and wake up with uncontrollable excitement. I'm merely saying that we stop telling them that the guy from all those fairy tales actually put them there.

In fact, rather than spending so much time and effort promoting the farce, perhaps we could more properly focus on the Truth about Christmas. I would contend that the actual Christmas story also entices the imagination. It is an investment that will never disappoint our children, even should they choose to stop believing. And in the end, the "magic" involved in the Almighty, Eternal and All-Knowing God taking the form of an infant boy is infinitely more compelling than the magic of a fat man getting down a chimney.

Perhaps it is wrong to think of it as an either/or. Perhaps I am playing the Scrooge, here. It will certainly land me on the Naughty List. But in the end, when the children have discovered that Santa is not real, what have they lost?

And yesterday their parents criticised teachers for taking the 'magic' out of the festive period.

I am upset because it has taken away a magical part of Christmas for my daughter and a teacher should not have the right to do that. My little girl was very upset.

Angry parents at Calcot Junior School in Berkshire said the teacher had 'ruined' Christmas for their children.

It is like a loss of innocence. Children should have the right to stay innocent for as long as possible.

In response to the first two comments, I think I've made my point. As for the other two, I think they are a bit overexaggerated, perhaps in the interest of an imminent law suit. If you ask me, the only thing that the children have really lost is trust in their parents.

Maybe I am crazy, but I would be interested to see what others think.

If I Were a Robot, Where Would I Want to Live?

In London, of course:

Visions of the status of robots around 2056 have emerged from one of 270 forward-looking papers sponsored by Sir David King, the UK government’s chief scientist. The paper covering robots’ rights was written by a UK partnership of Outsights, the management consultancy, and Ipsos Mori, the opinion research organisation.

“If we make conscious robots they would want to have rights and they probably should,” said Henrik Christensen, director of the Centre of Robotics and Intelligent Machines at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

At least they take themselves seriously (because no one else will, I hope):

“If granted full rights, states will be obligated to provide full social benefits to them including income support, housing and possibly robo-healthcare to fix the machines over time,” it says.

Robo-healthcare? I wonder if there will be robo-retirement packages for machines with outdated programming? What about robo-vacation days? (shut down the factory, the computers are going to the Grand Canyon.)

Then there is the ethical ramifications:

Mr Christensen said: “Would it be acceptable to kick a robotic dog even though we shouldn’t kick a normal one?

“There will be people who can’t distinguish that so we need to have ethical rules to make sure we as humans interact with robots in an ethical manner so we do not move our boundaries of what is acceptable.”

No more throwing the remote on the floor when you are done watching TV; I suppose this would be an assault. Even more problematic, will owning a personal computer become robot slavery?

In an age where the life is less and less important (killing on both ends of the spectrum, old and young, is increasingly acceptable), it is a little surprising that these scientists care so much about protecting the lives of their robots. But then again, robots are not alive--they are machines--so by granting equal rights to non-living objects, they are still destroying the dignity of the human person. Chalk up one more point for the culture of death.

Who isn't like Hilter - Part III

According to Jon Paine (who isn't like Thomas Paine), God is not like Hitler:

Check the math: Hitler killed 9 million jews in the concentration camps, didn't burn them til after they were dead so they felt no pain.

Biblegod on the other hand, intends to save a remnant of 144,000 according to Rev. 7:4 out of the entire humanity from beginning to end of the human age. (To make it easy, I'll just use the figure 5.4 million which is humanity upon the earth today.) By my calculation 1 percent will be redeemed and 99 percent barbecued forever (and it's gonna hurt). Forgot to give you the math: 144,000 divided by 5.4 billion is a fraction of 1 percent; ergo 99 percent to eternal fricasee.

Hitler is relatively a Saint in comparison to Biblegod, don't ya think?

I guess that only leaves one question, if Bush is not like Hitler, and God is not like Hitler, then is Bush like God? (Proof one - God appeared to Moses as a burning bush!!)

Who Isn't Like Hitler? - Part II

1) Thomas Paine - Apparently he was a civil libertarian

2) President Bush - Here's the Proof if you have a few hours and enjoy reading nonsense.

This Day in History - Part II

Perhaps this is more accurate:

“These are the times that try men’s souls; the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

Who isn't like Hitler?

A comparison to Hitler? Once that may have meant something, but now you need no more than a pulse to be compared to Hitler.

This Day in History

Who exactly is this Ransom?

Outstanding

Short but piercing.

Why I Miss Lawrence

In case you didn't already know, its the holidays. As in multiple. And just to make sure that we don't get too carried away celebrating only one, *cough* Christmas *throat clearing*, our old friend the LJ World has provided this little nugget on the "festival of lights".

And why you might ask?

“The message of Hanukkah needs to be displayed in public,” [Rabbi] Tiechtel said. “It’s about the concept that you are not to be ashamed of who you are.”

So Jews are ashamed of being Jewish at Christmas? And that's the message of Hanukkah?

. . . during the season when Santa pops up in every shopping mall and parade and Christmas songs play over speakers in grocery stores, being Jewish can become more pronounced and more apparent.

Maybe I have a poor understanding of Jewish history, but isn't that a good thing in Judaism?! God's chosen people, set apart from the rest of the world. I know that circumcision is "in" right now, but I'm pretty sure that for several thousand years it was a defining mark of the Jewish people, one that made "being Jewish more pronounced and more apparent."

One Jewish student had a different take:

. . . KU graduate student Shana Beach, who grew up celebrating Judaism. . . attended services twice a week, was bat mitzvahed at 13 and lit Sabbath candles after sundown on Fridays. That upbringing, she said, made her feel part of the holiday season even while her friends and neighbors celebrated a different holiday. “I felt proud enough of that that I didn’t feel left out by the Christmas stuff,” she said.

So what is the message of Hanukkah to a proud Jew:

. . . Beach said that to her Hanukkah has become blended into a cultural season — a season of holidays for everyone, whether Jewish, Christian or otherwise. “I look at Christmas as not so much a Christian thing but as an American thing,” she said.

I'm going to agree with Shana on this one. But surely this American cultural phenomenon is a good thing and we would only be cheating ourselves by overlooking such an important festival:

. . . compared with other Jewish holy days — Rosh Hashanah, for example — Hanukkah represents a fairly minor celebration. “The only reason that it has become a big holiday is because it happens at the same time as Christmas,” she said.

So what exactly is the message? Diversity. American's don't worship baby Jesus or Yahweh or whatever other religious figure you can think of this holiday season, they worship diversity. And why is diversity good? Because it is diverse. A.K.A. Nonsense.

P.S. If you go the main page of the LJ World, there is an interesting picture of an electric menorah. Again, not so up to speed with Jewish tradition, but isn't this festival about burning oil?

Irony

Lest the glare on the photo obscure the message, that is a Lutheran church telling us that "the bible need not be rewritten, just reread."

Quid Es Veritas?

While you may have heard of the death of actor, Peter Boyle, I thought I would highlight an interesting and yet disappointing aspect of his life:

The son of a local TV personality in Philadelphia, Boyle was educated in Roman Catholic schools and spent three years in a monastery before abandoning his religious studies. He later described the experience as similar to "living in the Middle Ages."

I would question the authenticity of anyone's discernment if they turned around with a comment like that. I regret that he had such a bad experience, but maybe it was the monastery's fault...

He explained his decision to leave in 1991: "I felt the call for awhile; then I felt the normal pull of the world and the flesh."

Okay, so maybe he preferred hedonism to the religious life. I have a sinking feeling that by "normal" he's not trying to convey universality, as in it is "normal" to feel the pull because we are all subject to original sin. It rather has the tone of acceptability, as though the normal or healthy person pursues the pull of the world and the flesh.

But here's my favorite part. Even though the world and the flesh pulled him away from the religious life, it wasn't as though he lost his desire to pursue truth:

Upon returning to New York, he began to land roles in TV commercials, off-Broadway plays and finally films. Through his wife, a friend of Yoko Ono, the actor became close friends with John Lennon. "We were both seekers after a truth, looking for a quick way to enlightenment," Boyle once said of Lennon, who was best man at his wedding.

Wow. Good for them. I mean, it wasn't like he was going to find truth in a Catholic monastery. Well, at least not the quick way.

For a more compelling and slightly confrontational approach to truth I recommend this.

What to expect in 2007

The state of the government is as bleak as ever next year. Here is something everyone should know about our country's leadership:

Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped to head the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats take over in January, failed a quiz of basic questions about al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of the key terrorist organizations the intelligence community has focused on since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

But then again, why would we expect the head of the Intelligence Committee to understand terrorism; all he really needs to know for the next few years is 'blame Bush' -- it has worked fine so far.

Also, don't expect any improvements in the area of limited government. We learn here that musicians are seeking a little help from the government as well:

Radio consolidation is shrinking playlists and creating a homogenized musical landscape, several singers and songwriters told the Federal Communication Commission on Monday.

They are correct, of course, that radio has become pretty worthless (except for those moments on a long car trip when you need a bubble-gum-pop singalong to break the malaise), but why should the govenment care about diversity of entertainment options? Apparently, here are their reasons:

"You can drive I-40 from Knoxville to Barstow, California, and hear the same 20 songs on every country radio station."

. . .

[Porter Wagoner] recalled how his former duet partner, Dolly Parton, scored a huge country and pop hit with the song, "Jolene," and he said, "The chance of that happening today is almost slim to none."

. . .

They say [a proposed] change would hurt minorities' access to the airwaves, curtail children's and local programming and limit musical diversity.

I personally like the juxtaposition of minority access (a cow as sacred as they come) with the plea for "musical diversity." Minorities & diversity! -- It is time for the goverment to step in and save the day. These less popular artists are suffering from music-popularity discrimination and it must be stopped. Instead of whining to the government, I suggest that these artists read this book and start improving their material, but that is the cold-hearted attitude that makes me un-electable.

I also find it hard to believe is that they think without the government's help Dolly Parton would not become popular today. It seems that Mr. Wagoner is discounting Parton's talent and ability when he says this. Incidentally, Dolly Parton was just honored by the Kennedy Center, so she is getting her government help, albeit indirectly.

. . . and your total comes to 30 pieces of Silver

Here we learn of a Louisiana Church that sold its land (and its soul?) to an islamic group:

Rev. Beth Sentell, one of co-pastors of the merged congregation, "said two considerations influenced their decision to sell the church plant to the Islamic Society. First was the amount of money offered, second was the opportunity to engage in interfiath dialogue and friendship." She and her husband, Dr. Web Sentell, "plan to invite the Islamic congregation and its imam to a church supper where the imam will field questions. Dr. Sentell said, 'We worship the same God.'" Co-pastor J. Daniel Hignight was asked "if he would ever seek to lead a member of the Islamic Society to Jesus Christ." He replied, "I don't feel a particular need to convert them to Christianity."

I can imagine the church supper where the imam fields questions and provides answers like: "follow God or vanish". At least the PCUSA folks won't care when they hear that "the pope must die."

On the bright side, the pastor feels no need to convert them to Christianity since they all worship the same God, so he won't actually be converting (same God and all) when he is forced to become a muslim or die. I wonder if Reverend Beth and her co-pastor will make the place more inclusive by reading parts of the Koran along with Scripture (same God and all, so same message, right)?