Simplistic views of the Judeo-Christian God

Heather Mac Donald’s fundamental point is reasonably sound; “the arguments for conservative values can proceed on reason alone.” (Emphasis mine.)

One problem with her argument is that it depicts a grossly oversimplified view of the God of Judeo-Christian faith. She acknowledges that she is making some assumptions, such as her comparisons to a human judge or father. More telling is this passage:

I am happy to live with a conception of God as completely inscrutable, as long as that conception is consistently applied. But I constantly hear believers confidently interpreting God’s intentions when something good happens to them or to others. When God saves a child from drowning, a believer knows why God acted: It was because of his love for the child.

Religiously Arguing – Heather Mac Donald, National Review

Even a cursory study of the nature of God reveals that his action in saving a child from drowning is either one of mercy or of grace. While these ideas are compatible with God’s love, this doesn’t mean that they are equivalent. What’s sad is that believers and unbelievers alike don’t understand the distinctions. I believe the faulty conclusion above is based, in whole or in part, on this misunderstanding.

As to the idea that a loving God would not sit idly by while his children suffered: Many parents of adult children have had no choice but to do exactly that while their children have descended into the self-destructive behaviors of substance abuse. Some of these parents weep daily. Most offer everything they can to help an alcohol- or drug-dependent child up and out of their miserable condition. In spite of it all, there is nothing that a parent, loving or otherwise, can do to force an unrepentant, unwilling adult child to get the help that they clearly need. At least, not in a country where personal freedoms are cherished and celebrated.

“But he’s God,” you say; “why doesn’t he just force the issue?” To this I answer: why do we assume that he should? Do we claim to know what plans God has made? Perhaps a teen walks by a man passed out in a gutter with a bottle in his hand, and decides right then and there that they will do everything to avoid ending up the same way. Perhaps a young doctor sees the ravages of heroin and commits to doing everything she can to educate her community, ultimately saving even one life. I am not saying that it’s okay to be an alcoholic or a junkie. I am saying that maybe, just maybe, some bad things are allowed to happen because it will awaken the good and noble in others.

On the other hand, there are times when a parent may legitimately choose to let a child suffer pain, even though this goes against one’s own desire. I’m a parent of young children, myself (all of them under 10 years old). This experience provides plenty of examples. Let me choose a silly, small example: let’s say my kids have enormous difficulty in keeping their room clean (hard to imagine, I know). After months of reminders, and repeated all-afternoon Saturday cleaning sessions, they’re simply not getting the point. In a change of direction we decide to inform them that it’s time to clean, secure a positive acknowledgment, and then go set a kitchen timer. When that timer goes off, anything that’s left out – favorite toys, clothes, whatever – goes into storage until further notice.

The worst part of this is when you have sentimental attachments to some of these items, perhaps as much as your children do. There have been tears of sadness and disappointment from both parent and child. You hope, though, that the child has learned a few important lessons, not the least of which are the law of consequence and a sense of personal responsibility.

The Judeo-Christian God doesn’t offer to routinely, or even occasionally, deliver human beings from the consequences of their actions. Rather, he asks us to trust him in spite of whatever may lie ahead. This is not incompatible with reason. It merely requires us to acknowledge that we don’t have all of the relevant information upon which to make a determination. I’m okay with that.

By the way, from the perspective of the eternal now, things that seem significant to us – trapped in linear time, as we are – can take on an entirely different meaning. I’ll explain more about this idea some other time.

Nancy and Harry vs. FEMA

Via the Mercury News, this AP story:

In a report entitled “Broken Promises,” House and Senate Democratic leaders described what they called “the failed response” of the administration since the hurricane hit.

Released Wednesday by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and her Senate counterpart, Harry Reid, D-Nev., the report asserted that “thousands of families are still waiting” for FEMA trailers and that a significant proportion of money that FEMA has spent there “has been waste, fraud and abuse.”

Bush: Katrina recovery will take time – Associated Press

How, exactly, are they differentiating their own waste from the “waste, fraud, and abuse” they’re laying at FEMA’s feet?

This seems like a very dangerous game that they’re playing.

Working for peace in Iraq

Captain Ed brings hopeful news just as I was starting to fear that rising violence would turn what many consider a de facto civil war into a full scale, declared conflict. He writes:

Two weeks is not much of a sample by which to extrapolate future performance. However, this does demonstrate that the US has finally applied force to the problem of the militias on both sides of the sectarian divide.

Read more…

While a full scale war doesn’t seem as unlikely as it once did, I feel it is still far from a foregone conclusion.

Doesn’t follow

Another dose of amusement courtesy of Instapundit. Tom Shoop writes:

In those limited circumstances, that might be true — although one would assume a planeload of bureaucrats, under the same conditions, would have made the same decision as the civilians on Flight 93.

Beating Up Government – Government Executive magazine

Um… okay.

Since when is “a planeload of bureaucrats” equivalent to “a bureaucracy”? Sure, they might be related, but this completely misses the point.

Say, is Mr. Shoop a bureaucrat?

UPDATE: Well, okay, I guess he’s not a bureaucrat. But I’m still amused.

Fox News crew is still missing

My own short attention span is shameful. Michelle Malkin is right:

The disappearance of Centanni and Wiig is at least as newsworthy as – and far more threatening to our national security than – people falling off cruise ships or getting eaten by alligators or attacked by bees.

Missing Fox News crew: Blogburst – Michelle Malkin

This isn’t about Fox News. This is about two human beings who deserve our concern and attention. Don’t let the media forget that.

The end of Qur’an Project

One last entry sums it all up:

So, here is the final update:

I finished the rest of the Qur’an and nothing there made me change my mind about the Manson-like quality of the cult.

Closed – Qur’an Project

Let me be quick to point out that my understanding that the cult is not Islam, itself. While I personally have grave doubts regarding the Muslim faith, that’s not an indictment against those who hold it. The Muslims I know are as tolerant and accepting as anyone else. Rather, the cult is those extremists who commit violence against people who have done them no wrong. Can anyone really argue otherwise?

About that oil hypothesis, again

Mohammed has a a great deal to say in a recent entry over at ITM. Tucked into the middle of it, we see this:

Logic amid the sands…

… For example so far I have never met one Iraqi who could answer the few simple questions I usually use in a conversation that begins with “they’re stealing our oil”. The questions are “do you know the GDP of the US?” or “do you know how much money the US military spends in Iraq alone?”

The common answer is “I don’t know” and sadly the people I usually talk to have at least finished a college.

Then comes the other question “Ok, so do you know what Iraq’s GDP is? Or the UK’s or Spain’s or Israel’s or Iran’s…?”

Almost in every case I get no answers …

Reading this makes me wonder: do you suppose that this is the source of the shrill cry of ignorant bandwagon jumpers in the United States? People who are so desperate for a cause that they will latch on to anything, no matter how flimsy the case may be, in order to pursue their own agenda, ultimately at the expense of the Iraqi people?

Whatever you believe regarding the necessity for the United States’ invasion of Iraq in the first place, the simple fact is that what’s done is done. It’s long since time to stop wishing we hadn’t and pretending that an exit will take place in the next few months, or worse, that this is something that will benefit Iraq. As PFC Torin Howling Wolf said in a recent documentary:

Our goal here is to help an oppressed people. Our goal here is to restore one of the most ancient and beautiful civilizations of all time.

NOVA: Life and Death in the War Zone

Some will call these honorable men and women misguided. While it is true that there are criminals in the military, there are also criminals in any group or society. These are the exception rather than the norm. Most U.S. soldiers believe they are there to help the people of Iraq. Most want Iraqis to control their own destiny. Most simply want to go home, but only as soon as their job is done.

Let us hope that Mohammed is not a lone voice in the wilderness, for our sake and particularly for the sake of the Iraqi people.

Constitutional Republic Democracy

Via PoliPundit, a smashingly astounding display of ignorance:

CALL TO ACTION

Starting at noon on September 1 2006, major websites and blogs all across the internet will replace their front pages with the single word “Impeach” in simple white text on a black background. (See this page for an example.) For 24 hours, web surfers and blog readers will see that word first when they visit their favorite sites. In this way, we hope to get the public talking about the one tool guaranteed by the Founders to restore our Constitutional Democracy.

Impeachnet » About

(Emphasis is mine.)

My objection, friends, in a mere seven words: The United States is a Constitutional Republic.

It’s tempting to assume that the United States is a democracy, especially if you go by dim memories of what you recall from elementary school and those pesky required high school courses in American Government. Put simply, though, a pure democracy is mob rule. The Founding Fathers, quite sensitive to the potential failings of such a government, chose to set up a system of checks and balances which limits the power of the government.

Here’s what Wikipedia says:

… The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government’s power, makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.

Contitutional republic – Wikipedia

There’s a lot more where that came from. I encourage everyone who believes that either

  • our government is a democracy, or
  • our government should be a democracy instead of a constitutional republic with democratically elected officials

to read the entire entry on Wikipedia.

Mob rule ain’t pretty, folks.

im•mi•nent (adjective): 1. about to happen

You’d think that people who make a living with words would make it a priority to understand what those words actually mean.

Tortured logic

Andrew Sullivan, clearly wanting to engage with the “deranged”, has asked that I provide evidence that an attack was imminent, and therefore, as I argued, that torture to obtain information about the impending attack was necessary and legitimate. The entirety…

Is it just me, or is Mr. Sullivan’s strawman downright laughable? Of course, I expect that he will reject the evidence provided as unverified or unreliable. Or – and this is a serious point – he could argue that you can never prove that something was imminent if it ultimately didn’t happen. You see, even the actual airline tickets are not proof that something would have happened. Who knows, right? I mean, those tickets could have been intended to enable a meeting with an al Qaeda operative in the United States, or perhaps a meeting with Mike Wallace.

Those in the know, of course, understand that these so-called “tickets” are the product of a Bush-driven CIA conspiracy to imprison innocent Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40. Just ask the DU. They’ll tell you.