Eleven states had same-sex union amendments on their ballots, and in every one of those states, the voters rejected allowing them. The most surprising? Oregon, typically a hotbed of civil liberties and left-leaning political opinions.
Posted on 3 November 2004
Predictably, we don’t have an “official” winner in the presidential race, but one candidate has a nice lead in the popular vote and just needs to win Ohio to seal his re-election. Of course, it won’t be that simple, as officials in Ohio are saying it could take up to 11 days to count the absentee and provisional ballots in that state, and those could affect the outcome of the race.
Canada, be prepared for influx of immigrants — mostly well-to-do folks and some academics.
The more interesting and influential races were for the House and Senate, and the Republicans will maintain their majority in both, in fact increasing it in the Senate. If you’re not a conservative, this is the most troubling news.
I thought the political banter at work was unbearable before the election, but I have a feeling today I’ll have to listen to lots of conservative gloating. Headphones are a wonderful thing.
I also don’t look forward to the hand-wringing and sobbing from left-leaning websites. Please, get over it and move on.
Posted on 3 November 2004
After days of heady (at least in my mind) posts, let’s turn to some other topics on this election night….
First, a couple more words about the alleycat. The weather was really perfect for late October. Warm-ish, with a nice breeze, clear skies and a full moon. And riding the Jail Trail with the wind at your back under the moon while talking theology with a new friend is quite nice.
Second, the cooler weather means it is now wine season in our house. I’m finishing the last of the Brooklyn family case right now (just one bottle of Pilsner, in case you imagined me downing six or seven beers). I’ve been compiling a list of good, cheap wines to try, and we’re anxious to get cracking.
Third, some World Rally News. Markko Martin won the Rallye Espana last weekend, taking advantage of Sebastien Loeb retiring with mechanical difficulties. Though the championship race is over, Martin still has a shot at overtaking Petter Solberg for second place, though Solberg can be expected to drive like a banshee next weekend in Australia. Both Loeb and Solberg will be gunning for their sixth rally win of the season. Ford also announced that they will continue their WRC programme for four more years, which is good news for the championship. Both Martin and Francois Duval have been shopping for new teams, however, so the roster may be quite different.
Posted on 2 November 2004
A friend, who is involved with our little “church and culture” discussion group, mentioned he had just read an interesting article for another group he’s involved with — THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF OUR ECOLOGICAL CRISIS by Lynn White, Jr. This piece, written in 1967, places much of the blame for the ever-growing abuse of the environment on Christians. I’m not really going to comment much on the statements in the article, primarily because I think it needs several readings, and I don’t have the time for it. But I say I don’t entirely disagree with the premise. I’m not necessarily willing to blame all our environmental ills on Medevial Christians, but I will place some blame on contemporary Christians who read “dominion” in Genesis as “do whatever you please.” Forming an entire theology of environmentalism (or lack thereof) from that single verse is problematic, simply because there so much evidence in the Bible that we are STEWARDS of Creation, and that all of Creation is a reflection of God, not just humanity. This site (mind the horrid design) has a laundry of passages talking about Creation and its relationship with God. I’m not lauding this as the be-all-end-all theology of Creation, but you can at least some Scriptural references and decide for yourself.
Posted on 1 November 2004
Yesterday, my father-in-law preached on Psalm 2 as it relates to our upcoming election. The basic idea? If you’re a Christian, don’t get so worked up about it. Don’t forget who’s behind the wheel of this thing. If the candidate you didn’t support wins, it probably won’t be enough to trigger the End Times.
And then, this morning, I find the same conclusion (albeit determined from a different philosophy and methodology) from an entirely source — Christopher Hitchens.
Neither electoral outcome can alter that. It’s absurd for liberals to talk as if Kristallnacht is impending with Bush, and it’s unwise and indecent for Republicans to equate Kerry with capitulation. There’s no-one to whom he can surrender, is there? I think that the nature of the jihadist enemy will decide things in the end.
I think he’s on to something there (and, in a way, he’s agreeing with some of Ralph Nader’s arguments).
Also, The New Pantagruel has a fantastic roundtable discussion about the election.
Posted on 1 November 2004
Last night was the Halloween Eve Alleycat. It started late — 8:30pm — so we were riding under the moon and streetlights the entire time. It started at The Mr. Roboto Project in Wilkinsburg, and ended in Oakland. The format was a set order checkpoint race, taking us on a nice tour of the east end of town, visiting two cemetaries, a church, and a monument to the Blessed Virgin Mary (more on that in a bit).
This was going to be my first alleycat riding a brakeless fixie, and I wasn’t nervous — until I got the manifest. The second checkpoint was Calvary cemetary in Greenfield, and the path of least resistance to the next checkpoint (the Jail Trail under the Birmingham Bridge) was a STEEP downhill into Hazelwood. How steep? Steep enough the organizers warned us about it. Gulp. A quick survey of the crowd revealed only two other brakeless riders, one of whom I knew, and knew was a bit crazy.
After the start and a visit to the Smithfield cemetary in Point Breeze, I hooked up with the other brakeless fixie, and we rode to Calvary, trying to decide how we’d get to Hazelwood. He suggested Hazelwood Avenue — it wasn’t terribly steep at the start, and it had a bit of a plateau before the final drop to Hazelwood. So after the stop at Calvary, we started the long descent. The other fixie (Evan, I think) took off, as he had much bigger legs than I, so he could lay down a skid to keep things under control. I was a quite a bit slower down the hill, but never felt out of control, and once I was on Second Avenue, we’re were cruising again into town.
The checkpoint on the Jail Trail was quick (didn’t even have to get off the bike), and a few minutes later we had made the stop at Trinity Cathedral. Nothing left but the slog up Penn Avenue. That hurt. A lot. The ride from Smithfield Cemetary to Calvary was surprising hilly (and unnecessarily so — we should have been on Murray Avenue), but I survived. We picked up a votive candle at Allegheny Cemetary (to be taken to the shrine on Ward Street) and we were off to Oakland.
We floundered around Oakland a bit trying to find the shrine, and we soon disovered that it required a bit of hiking. After a minutes walk from the end of Ward Street, we found the shrine. It is quite literally built into the hillside overlooking the Parkway East. And, based on the number of lit candles, it is well-used by Oakland’s Catholic community. We exchanged the candles for a sticker for the manifest, and it was time to ride a few more blocks to the finish. Evan ran into some mechanical issues on the climb up Ward, snapping his chain. He simply tossed the broken chain in his bag, and pushed along the remaining block like a scooter.
Good times. I finished in the top 30, but I sorta wish the organizers would start a fixie category, because especially on a course like this, we’re at a distinct disadvantage. But, I don’t do these things as races, really, so it doesn’t matter. The new Steamroller handled quite well, and I doubt I’ll put a front brake on it anytime soon. I was also surprised that I survived all the hills running 42×16, especially Penn Avenue at the end of it all. The only I really would have liked was a set of TT bars, just because the climbing position is more comfortable.
Posted on 31 October 2004
The Japery has an interesting column about the Christian tendancy toward single issue voting. I really only want to comment on the last paragraph:
Abortion, properly understood by pagans and religionists alike, pertains to end of life “issues,” like euthanasia; genetic meddling on all kinds of life; the proper limits of the state; economic and “social” justice–and more. How we regard and treat life, especially human life, and the health of the family (the fundamental ordering structure of society) is a basic, foundational political concern that rightly precedes all others. One can vote on it as a “single-issue” or “litmus test” because it impacts all other “issues” most profoundly, and a person’s views on “abortion” always tell you a great deal about that person and what you might expect from them.
He should be right, but unfortunately, that’s just not the case in this present age. Is there anyone out there that really believes George Bush’s entire political agenda is driven by his desire for a “cutlure of life?” If that’s the case, why isn’t he pushing to extend the welfare to help those who can’t help themselves? I can’t remember where I read it, but I came across a quote a few weeks ago that went something like this: Conservatives only care about you before you’re born. Sure, George Bush wants to fund more faith-based initiatives, but if you’re a Christian in government, wouldn’t you want the government to do Christ’s work of helping the poor? Many single issue voters support Bush for his anti-abortion stand, but they end up agreeing with his plan to democratize the Middle East through force to ride the world of those Godless Muslims. Am I the only one who sees a bit of contradiction there? The “culture of life” only applies to you if you’re an American.
And let’s talk a bit about “genetic meddling.” Christians are whole-heartedly against stem cell research (despite the potential conflict created with the support of fertility clinics), but they are oddly unaffected by another aspect of “genetic meddling” — genetically modified plants and animals. And who are the biggest foes of GMOs? Those baby-killing Democrats. Science can’t tinker with humans, but everything else is fair game. There are endless reports of the potential dangers of GM foods — from danger to the consumers to the disruption of the ecosystem. But few Christians pay any attention to the Biblical mandate to be stewards of creation. Where is the link Fr. Jape says exists? A Pro-Life perspective does not necessarily inform one’s political perspective.
Posted on 30 October 2004
My church’s little “cultural issues” discussion group has picked the readings for our next get together, and I thought I’d use this space as my notebook for my thoughts.
Freedom and Decency — David Hart (from First Things)
Hart, and Eastern Orthodox theologian, sets out to define whether or not we, as Christians, are engaged in a cultural war with a rapid deteriorating society, and if we are, what we should do about it. The first problem, he surmises, is that our government, thanks to society’s worship of the modern liberal idea of choice, can no longer define decency through censorship. He looks wistfully back to the “good old days” when the Hays Office controlled Hollywood and the Post Office could prosecute those who sent illicit material in the mail. But the Hays Office and code were nothing more than a think veneer of decency, and Hart even admits as much:
Consider one of the more obvious cases of commercial standards abandoned, that of cinema. For all the ponderous parochialism of the old motion picture code, it did at the very least demand of screenwriters the kind of delicate technique necessary to communicate certain things to mature viewers without giving any hint of their meaning to the children also watching. Thus films had to be written by adults, and the best films required writers of some considerable skill. After all, everyone of a certain age in the audience was well aware of what things occurred between men and women in private. They understood, therefore, what may have happened between Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman when the camera cut away to the watchtower?s revolving beam of light; what had failed to happen when Spencer Tracy quietly slipped out of Katharine Hepburn?s apartment, neglecting to take his hat with him; what it was that Katharine Hepburn was both relieved and offended to discover had not happened when, on the previous evening, her inebriation had required Jimmy Stewart to carry her to her bed; what Bogart and Bacall were really discussing under the veil of their equestrian metaphors; why Glenn Ford was treating Rita Hayworth with at once such tenderness and such malice; and what Barbara Stanwyck was implying when she wrapped her arms around Fred MacMurray?s neck and murmured, ?But, darling, we are at Niagara Falls.?
This was a better circumstance because the indecency was hidden, just a bit, from the audience. It doesn’t seem to matter that the clever writers are still writing about “indecent” acts — just the fact that we can’t see them makes all the difference. What’s even more interesting about this argument is that Hart later alludes to Plato’s cave, but in this circumstance, aren’t we all still stuck looking at the shadows on the wall? Sure, the images are pure and clean, but what they allude to isn’t. It’s just an illusion of decency. And is that really any better?
The idea of a “censorship office” has another potential pitfall, one that Hart doesn’t discuss — the door of censorship can swing both ways. One man’s decency is another man’s perversion, and think for a moment if the head of the “censorship office” decides that certain religious narratives are “indecent” — perhaps not in the lewd sense of the word, but just plain old unacceptable. Hart does, however, realize that what Americans really treasure is choice — the ability to decide for themselves what is indecent. Again, one man’s decency is another’s perversion. Part of his point is well-taken:
This is the crucial issue, I think: not what we understand decency to be, but what we mean when we speak of freedom. It is a curious condition of late Western modernity that, for so many of us, the highest ideal of the good society is simply democracy as such, and then within democracy varying alloys of capitalism, the welfare state, regionalism, federalism, individualism, and so on. And what we habitually understand democratic liberty to be?what we take, that is, as our most exalted model of freedom?is merely the unobstructed power of choice. The consequence of this, manifestly, is that we tend to elevate what should at best be regarded as the moral life?s minimal condition to the status of its highest expression, and in the process reduce the very concept of freedom to one of purely libertarian or voluntarist spontaneity. We have come to believe?more or less unreflectively?that the will necessarily becomes more free the more it is emancipated from whatever constraints it suffers; which means that, over the course of time, even our most revered moral traditions can come to seem onerous nuisances that we must shed if we are to secure our ?rights.? At the very last, any constraint at all comes to seem an intolerable bondage. But it was not ever thus.
But, he seems to forget his history. Many conservative (and non-conservative) Christians see the pilgrams from England as heroes — they left their home and went into harm’s way to find religious freedom — no, religious choice. Again, Hart finds a door that swings both ways. Choice is a liberty we have, and it is at the very foundation of our constitutional government. And Hart begins to blur he lines between our constitutional system, and Christian faith:
Part of our leap of faith as Christians is giving over ourselves to God. We switch one master for another, and in that, we have freedom (in the theology sense). But we make that leap willingly, and happily. To expect a non-believer to give up their liberty of choice as a stepping stone to greater freedom is a stretch. And I believe most Americans understand the complex nature of freedom — what political theorists call liberty. Citizens do give up certain “freedoms” to live in a civilized society. But we can’t expect them to give up choice because we as Christians operate under that same freedom. Freedom of choice defines behavior broader than just the indecent.
And here’s where I come to my greatest agreement/disagreement with Hart:
And if we insist on being moderns, or Americans, or democrats, or consumers first, rather than Christians, Jews, and virtuous pagans above all, whose spiritual loyalties transcend all other associations, and if we allow ourselves to believe that true freedom is anything other than the liberation and perfection of a definite nature in conformity with the highest Good?with God Himself, that is?then we will always be divided against ourselves, and will be to some degree accomplices of those very forces whose defeat we think we desire. Indeed, we cannot really affect the course of the nation at all, or even properly imagine what kind of political or social future we should want, so long as we fail to remember (and to fashion our lives according to the knowledge) that we exist only because there is One who has called us from nothingness to be what He desires us to be, not simply what we would like to make ourselves, and that we shall truly be free?and know what freedom is?only when we have no choices left.
He’s right, but we aren’t going to teach people this by taking away their political freedom. Decency laws won’t change people’s hearts. We as Christians need to models for a Godly lifestyle, but unfortunately, we fail miserably time and again. Only by working from the inside out can we expect to affect any cultural change.
Posted on 30 October 2004
Why are religious conservatives still the squeaky wheels?
Great points brought forth in this article. Thanks to the Christian Right, if you say you’re a Christian, you’re branded as a close-minded political conservative, which, for a lot of us, just isn’t the case. But don’t just blame the Religious Right and the, ahem, left-leaning media for this bias:
Some responsibility for the continued loud voices of political conservatives rests with the leadership of mainline Protestant traditions. Mainline Protestants, who have tended to become more politically liberal in the last two decades, are the natural base for a “Vote ALL your values” initiative. And yet whether concerned with the in-house business of their own denominations or wary of alienating the person in the pew by perceived involvement in political debate during a polarized time, few denominational heads showed up at last week’s New York press conference. With the exception of an Episcopal bishop and an ecumenical officer for the United Methodists, all the other featured speakers were heads of large extra-denominational organizations. Moderate leaders within traditional church structures are not going out on any limbs.
I think for some folks (at least reformed types), going out on a limb means potentially creating rifts within a congregation, because there are still plenty of political conservatives to be found in evangelical/reformed circles. Do you risk dividing a church by talking politics from the pulpit? While many Christians may not agree with George Bush’s policies, how many would be willing to say that they are sinful? But perhaps that’s the wrong question — the plank in your own eye and all that. We should, however, be able to examine political policy under the Biblical microscope. A pastor should be critical of putting the cart before the horse — are we letting our faith be influenced by our political views, or are our political views shaped by the proper study of Scripture? And I’ve asked before, we’re we called to be counter-cultural?
Posted on 28 October 2004
I haven’t been very geeky in this space lately, and my current job isn’t always technically challenging, but today I discovered that you can use C# within an XSL template. The stylesheet was being applied to a DataSet that had been converted directly to XML, and I needed to manipulate a date field (and I couldn’t easily do the manipulation in SQL), so it was C# to the rescue. Groovy.
Posted on 27 October 2004