The Daily Detour

Tis' the season for "Reason's Greetings"

Last Christmas, a number of related atheist groups made international headlines with an orchestrated campaign that ran ads on billboards and buses running in cities like London, Chicago, Washington D.C., and even here in Indiana. It began what is apparently becoming an annual tradition.

There is now an additional campaign taking place in certain cities across the country. Slogans like "Heathen's Greetings" and "Yes, Virginia, there is no God." are finding their way onto billboards, sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

I happpened to run across this very interesting transcript of an interview between Laura Ingraham and Annie Laurie Gaylor, one of the co-presidents of the organization. Ms. Ingraham was guest-hosting Bill O'Reilly's show. I did not see the actual interview (because my computer is starting to walk down the green mile) but reading the interview raises some issues to light that are worth considering.

In general, I don't have a huge problem with self-described "freethinkers" buying ads of this nature. I don't necessarily agree with their premise, but I do wholeheartedly believe that the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution extends to all citizens of the United States, especially those with whom I may disagree. That is what makes the governing system in our republic so unique and enviable, is that we have the right to speak up. (And ironically, as I've pointed out here before, that even includes those who bash our Founding Fathers--the ones who ensured that right to speak up.) Such is the essential nature of this wonderful country of ours, and that is a freedom that should be vigilantly protected.

My only real issue with these kinds of efforts by the skeptic community is that they seem more than a bit antagonistic toward those who don't share their beliefs. And I don't always understand why that needs to be the case. It seems to me that there can be (and should be) room for all of us at the table.

Perhaps it's because in many ways the non-religious among us feel as though they have been hurt, offended, or even attacked by the religious devotees. I don't know. But it is interesting to see the reaction by many skeptics toward what they see as the dogmatic nature of Christianity while simultaneously turning a blind eye to their own dogma--dogma about a different set of beliefs, but dogma nonetheless. Isn't the goal to try to be less dogmatic, while still leaving room to hold firmly to those convictions that we believe in? For the Christian, it separates what I call the "non-negotiable" beliefs from the "negotiable" beliefs. And the non-negotiables represent what C.S. Lewis termed "mere" Christianity.

Regardless, I find this particular exchange beneficial in a couple of immediate ways. First of all, it proves very illuminating concerning many of the feelings about, and arguments against, Christianity that many skeptics have. For those Christians who are serious about trying to reach out to their neighbors, the comments made by Ms. Gaylor are essentially what many (if not most) skeptics feel about Christians and Christianity (TDD skeptic readers: please do weigh in here and correct me if this is not the case). The arguments presented by skeptics are not merely theoretical attempts to stir the pot. Real, rational people have staked their lives and future on their sincere beliefs about these things. And they should be respected for that.

Secondly, the exchange here, and the corresponding ad campaign that it highlights, provide a great opportunity to have substantive dialogue about these kinds of issues. (I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Ms. Ingraham or Ms. Gaylor were engaged in that effort, though perhaps the attempt was being made by one side or the other at times.) But we all can certainly seek to explore and understand our differences of belief. And we can thoughtfully engage in the exchange of ideas as we pursue what we all are seeking--the Truth. That is, after all, the reason for any season.

UPDATE: Stephanie Simon over at The Wall Street Journal wrote this interesting article about last year's atheist ad campaign.

The grade is in...

During his Christmas special with Oprah, President Obama gave himself a "good, solid B-plus" for his first eleven months in office. I'm not seeing it myself, because after all, that is just a shade below an A-minus, and I don't think an objective assessment of Obama's first year in office would consider him an almost-A level student. That seems decidedly optimistic. (But, that's just me, and our differences of worldview would clearly affect why Obama might be so generous in his evaluation of himself.)

Unfortunately, for Obama, his assessment of himself is subordinate to the assessment of his constituents. It's our grade that ultimately matters. The first part of his grade will come during the mid-term elections in 2010, followed up by the next presidential election in 2012.

What about you? How would you grade Obama for his first year in office?

UPDATE: It was reported today, "ABC News/Washington Post poll: Obama's approval rating hits new low". Apparently, the American people aren't as enamored with Obama's performance as he is.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

As Ronald Reagan famously said, these are the nine most terrifying words in the English language. Truer words were never spoken.

The AP just reported today,

"The Treasury Department is acknowledging for the first time that it lost $61 billion on two key programs designed to stabilize the economy after the largest financial crisis in decades."

So, apparently after all of the assurances that we needed bailouts and stimulus funding--and now, even more stimulus funding--to restart the economy, the government has fessed up to the fact that they have lost over $61 billion!?! (That's billion with a "b".)

This is what makes it difficult to feel confident when Obama & Co. essentially suggest to the American people, "Trust us, we know what's best for you and the country." Conservatives have been trying to sound this warning against that liberal mentality for some time. And to be fair, President Bush was no fiscal conservative, so the more courageous conservatives among us were warning the country back then. But the Obama presidency has taken spending to a whole other level.

Misspending (and in this case, losing $61 billion) is the luxury of those who are using other people's money. This is one of the many reasons why it is better to let people keep more of their money in their own pockets. The more the government overreaches, the greater the possibility for abuse. But then again, I guess we can at least find some comfort in the fact that they have enough integrity to admit their mistakes. :)

What happens to the terrorists?

A while ago I introduced a new category detailing the bumber sticker battles taking place on our highways everyday. It's been some time since I've shared a bumper sticker, but this one caught my attention on Wednesday:

God's job is to forgive terrorists. Our job is to arrange the meeting.

This bumper sticker message begs the question, "Should God forgive unrepentant terrorists?" 

Dancing around the Truth

"Okay, enough with the dead horse already, Crane." :) Maybe, but I keep harping on this issue of Truth, because it is so fundamental, especially regarding something as life-altering as terrorist attacks. And it seems others are recognizing it as well.

This excellent article by Michael Goodwin points out how President Obama has been dancing around the harsh realities of the Ft. Hood massacre. (God forbid we call it terrorism.) Furthermore, over at the Culture and Media Institute, Carolyn Plocher and Dan Gainor point out how the MSM has been downplaying the connection between the terrorist act at Ft. Hood and Islam. Can we not call it what it is? How does downplaying the true reality help us in the long run?

This will continue to be a significant issue until the Islamic jihadists decide to lay down their car bombs (which they won't). And with the 9/11 terrorists' trials having been moved from Guantanamo Bay to NYC, the question of Truth will now be put to the test. Amidst the inevitable legal wrangling, let's hope Truth prevails in the end. The families of victims deserve justice, and so does the country. 

Truth and Islam in light of Ft. Hood

Last week, I talked about the need to examine the tragedy at Ft. Hood in light of the truth, which is proving increasingly difficult in our politically-correct culture. We ignore the true motivation behind the shootings at our peril.

It seems others are drawing similar conclusions. Over at Politics Daily, Jeffrey Weiss writes a very fair-minded assessment of this situation in light of other killings in the name of Islam. Part of his analysis correctly acknowledges that most Muslims could be considering peace-loving people. But as he points out,

And yet, there is that small fraction of Muslims who take another, horrible meaning from their sacred texts and act upon it. Consider that if only one-tenth of one percent of Muslims in the world hold to that violent ideology, that's a million people.

Weiss makes an interesting comparison with the other shooting that happened in Orlando a day after the Ft. Hood massacre.

The other terrible shooting in America last week happened in Orlando. From the details now available, a man named Jason Rodriguez killed one person and wounded five others. In the aftermath of that event, I can find no stories asking Hispanics about any sense of responsibility they might share. Nor, given the statistical probability about the religious beliefs of American Hispanics, have Catholics been asked for a reaction...

And when he started shooting, I can find no account that says he shouted anything about La Raza or Jesus.

But in Fort Hood, the shooter himself introduced his religion into the narrative. That's the difference. And it's a difference that matters.

My point exactly! We can't ignore the difference any more than we can treat cancer like a common cold. If we're dealing with a common cold, then fine. But if the reality is much more serious than a common cold, what good comes from ignoring it? 

"Tear down this wall!"

On June 12, 1987, then-President Ronald Reagan stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate of the Berlin Wall and famously challenged Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev, "Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" In the light of history, those forceful words from President Reagan foreshadowed the eventual collapse of the Berlin Wall twenty years ago today--on Nov. 9, 1989--and ushered in the ultimate demise of the Soviet empire and communism.

The fall of the Berlin Wall was a visual symbol of the humanity's universal quest for liberty. And it essentially demonstrated the bankruptcy of the Marxist worldview. In my own brief analysis of the fatal flaw of Marxism (or "Critical Theory" as it is termed in academic circles), I asserted that those who promote the Marxist worldview fail to account for the fallen human condition. This was one of the fundamental ideas I posed in a doctoral essay on the subject:

According to Crotty (2003) the assured hope of Marxist theory is that “the conflict today between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat will lead to the development of a socialist, then communist, world, a classless society born of an emancipatory process and offering true freedom to all.” (p. 119) Such a vision has a certain attraction that would be the envy of any person. Who would not want to live in such a world?

The fulfillment of such a dream, however, appears to be based on the humanistic assumption that humanity, if given true freedom, will choose the good. But, is that an accurate reflection of human nature? Theoretically speaking, for example, what happens when the proletariat overthrows the fetters placed on them by the bourgeoisie? What restraints are there to prevent them from evolving into the new bourgeoisie?

There seems to be an underlying assumption embedded in Critical Theory which suggests that such a reality would never come about, because those who have been oppressed—through classism, racism, sexism and the like—will utilize the lessons learn through their collective experiences to create a better world for all people.

I would concur that the improvement of our world is possible to a degree, and we should all certainly use our experiential understandings about life to pursue such an end. However, is the inherent nature of humanity really bent toward to the good—and therefore, is utopia on earth ever truly possible? In his letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton Lord Acton contends that “All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (Federer, 2000, p. 2) In this statement Lord Acton is not speaking about a particular class of people. Rather, his statement is inclusive in its illumination of the human condition, a condition that cannot be overlooked when considering Marxist theory. Because Marxist theory is based on a theological ideology of atheistic humanism, the efforts at such a communal utopia will always be hindered by the inherent nature of humanity, an obstacle which inevitably begins to erode the very foundation of the theory itself.

Ironically, history has shown the problems with Marxist ideology. And yet, there are those in our own country, who continue to embrace the supposed utopia that Marxism promises to bring. At some point, we must ask ourselves why people are risking their lives, for example, to come from Cuba to the United States, and not the other way around?

Pursuing Truth in the Ft. Hood tragedy

As the investigation into the Ft. Hood massacre continues, it is interesting to note some of the developments. One of the biggest ones to grab the nation's attention is that Major Nidal Malik Hasan was not only a fervent practicing Muslim, but that during the shootings he reportedly uttered the words, "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is great!") in Arabic, the same phrase often used by Islamic jihadists who engage in suicide bombings.

Obviously, the development of this particular angle on the story is raising a number of questions and concerns that require our attention. But unfortunately, it seems that most of the national news coverage is shying away from the Muslim connection in an apparent politically-correct effort to keep the peace (with FOX News being the notable exception).

As I was talking with a good friend of mine this morning about this incident, the subject of Truth came up. I mentioned to him that the tendency in our culture to diminish the idea of absolute Truth has put us all at greater risk. For if we are unwilling to face the Truth of a given situation, then we are unable to identify dangers and seek justice.

The Truth is, Major Hasan's motivation may have nothing to do with his devotion to Islam. And if so, then we can (and should) explore other possibilities. But if, however, his motivation was driven by his Muslim ideology, our unwillingness to acknowledge the Truth of that reality is our fault. And as I've said many times before, we ignore the Truth at our peril.

Should we do away with Christianity?

If you follow the line of reasoning of militant atheists like Sam Harris and his "end of faith" thesis, then the answer is "Yes!" In fact, I was listening to the Dennis Miller radio show last Friday. I caught part of his interview with atheist author Christopher Hitchens and Pastor Douglas Wilson. They spent that part of the program debating the fundamental question, "Is Christianity good for the world?" It is a question that they debate in more detail in their new documentary, "Collision".

So, what do you think--Is Christianity good for the world or not? Why? 

Understanding light and darkness

I just finished a teaching lesson on the importance of Christians engaging in our culture in positive and restorative ways. As a part of that lesson, I highlighted the correlation between light and darkness. I wanted to bring them to your attention for consideration.

"You are the light of the world," Jesus said in Matthew 5:14.

We often hear this admonition that we are the light, shining God's light into a darkened world. And indeed, that is true. That is why Paul exhorted the Philippian church to live their lives in such a way that they "shine like stars in the universe" (Phil. 2:15).

Scan the latest news headlines and you will quickly identify the gradual moral deterioration taking place in our culture. It is easy to become despondent at what we see happening before us. And in our search for solutions, we are quick to point out the many people and institutions who are contributing to our cultural demise. But in that evaluation we often overlook the one group of people who most directly affect the outcome--US. Consider this:

What is the correlation between light and darkness? Which entity influences the other? Put another way, imagine you are standing in a brightly lit room on a dark night. If you opened the door, would the darkness spread into the room from the outside, or would the light move from inside the room out into the darkness? Which is affected by the other?

What does this understanding about the relationship between light and darkness tell us about our role as light in the darkness? Simply put, if a godless presence appears to be darkening our cultural landscape, what is the reason? It is not because the darkness is actually advancing--darkness, after all, is influenced by light, not the other way around. It is actually because we, the light, are retreating.

Columnist Cal Thomas makes a compelling point on this subject when he writes,

"Culture is starving because too many with a worldview that differs from the prevailing one have withdrawn their nurturing influence. It doesn't help when such people are persuaded it is better to criticize institutions and their products rather than go them one better...Might we please see less energy (and money) spent on criticizing what others produce and more channeled into developing better lawyers, professors, philosophers, artists, journalists and filmmakers?"

What are we each doing to influence our culture toward the Good?