On the 10th anniversary of 9/11

Lord, have mercy.

2996 crosses

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Short thoughts: On downgrading from AAA

I assume nobody is shocked that the U.S. credit rating was downgraded from AAA. Speaking of our government: We do not have a triple-A commitment to balanced budgets. We do not have a triple-A commitment to living within our means. We do not have a triple-A commitment to financial responsibility.

The ratings are simply reflecting what has long been a reality.

If someone considers that prized credit-rating worth obtaining again, we have to develop triple-A seriousness about putting our finances in order.

"But the LORD was not in the earthquake" (I Kings 19:11)

And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave.

Earlier today I chanced across the writing of someone commenting on the earthquake in Japan who said that natural disasters are caused by God. That was said without any qualification at all. I'd like to offer a different perspective.

Are disasters ever caused by God? I think Christians would generally agree that at least sometimes they are. Consider the sack of Jerusalem which Jesus predicted would fall on the city and the generation that had rejected him, and how Jerusalem was destroyed not long afterwards. It didn't even have to be a natural disaster. God can arrange events so that even armies of idol-worshipers could serve his purpose.

But I must object when someone looks at an earthquake and says, "The LORD is in the earthquake." The LORD wasn't in Elijah's earthquake. It does no good to say "God is omnipresent" -- he still wasn't in Elijah's earthquake. Had he stopped being omnipresent? Not at all; but God still wasn't in the earthquake. He was in the still, small voice. Those who look for God in the earthquake are going to miss that still, small voice. Those who are drawn to God's power -- or feel obliged to proclaim and defend God's power -- can miss that he often chooses gentleness. When we see God in the earthquake, it's only a short step to blaming the victims, becoming Job's comforters to those who may not deserve such treatment. And we miss that God may not have been in the earthquake. So through the earthquake, wind, and fire, it takes discernment to realize that the voice of God may be the still, small voice.

Jesus reminded us that disasters are not necessarily God's retribution.

Or those eighteen people upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, do you think that they were sinners above all men in Jerusalem? I tell you: they were not. (Luke 13:4-5)

Jesus leaves us free to see the cause for that tower's collapse as simply gravity. I think he also leaves us free to look for the cause of the earthquake in natural causes.

Reflection on a funeral - and a perspective-check for militant atheists

This week I went to my aunt's funeral. My uncle lives out of state, so I was glad to see he had a huge group of people who were there for him.

My aunt's health had failed in a long and drawn-out process that so often happens with cancer. At the memorial service I was glad to hear that some of the people there -- people from my aunt and uncle's Bible study group -- had been able to come over and sit with my aunt while my uncle ran errands when she had become too weak to take care of herself. After her death, they had helped to pick the outfit my aunt would wear for the viewing; I was glad my uncle didn't have to do that alone. When all the relatives from out-of-town came for the viewing -- and all the people who loved my aunt came for the viewing -- there was a remarkably large group of people there. At the funeral home on the night of the viewing, their church Bible study group coordinated and brought enough food for everyone to have a meal, which was no small thing given the number of people. The next day after the funeral service, again the church Bible study group coordinated and brought enough food for everyone to have a meal.

The whole time I was impressed by their kindness, their gentleness, their thoughtfulness. They went out of their way to include me and make me feel welcome. They shared one good story after another about my aunt. I never lacked for someone there for me, and neither did my daughter, even though the majority of them had never met us before. And coming back home, I didn't doubt for a minute that they would be there for my uncle -- because they were already there for him, unasked, and had been there for him all along.

And I get back home and the message boards and propaganda publications with the militant atheists are all the same: Christians are dangerous and imbalanced and vicious; raising your children that way is abusive; religious people are a threat to civilization and decency everywhere. And all I could think is, "What the blazes is wrong with you people?" How can you heap that much nastiness and abuse on some of the kindest people on the planet? Or have you seriously never met religious people in real life, and are forming your opinions mainly based on prejudice and propaganda? Make no mistake, the people who behave the way these people did are the real and devoted followers of Jesus Christ. And if someone can look at those good, kind, down-to-earth people who have devoted their lives to going out of their way to help others, and think they're warped and malicious and dangerous, then what the blazes is wrong with this picture?

Haiti's homes, Mexico's colonias, America's unemployment, and learned helplessness

I'm not sure I can imagine an earthquake. I can't even begin to fathom what it would be like to have a major city devastated as happened in Haiti at the beginning of this year. Immediately afterward, the news covered large populations living in tents.

Recently with a storm named Tomas going towards Haiti, there was news that people in the tent cities were refusing to evacuate. Tent cities? Still? It has been a little over nine months since the earthquake.

Once, before the "modern world" came upon us, many families built their own homes. They may have enlisted their neighbors' help, but the job got done. The homes may not have been fancy homes, but they were better than tents. I'm sure many people around the world still live in homes they or their families built with their own hands. On my father's side, I think my great-grandparents probably built their own home. These days it would probably be illegal for them to even try.

These days we expect better. We expect concrete slabs, electricity, plumbing, windows, insulation -- everything meeting the proper building code. I wonder, how much of that applies in Haiti? Is the insistence that people have better homes -- with all the right permits, and all the right contractors, and properly inspected -- is that part of what's keeping them in tents? How many attempts to solve problems have to be blocked before people give up on solving their own problems?

I look at the people who live in the colonias around the Texas/Mexico border. Their ancestors built pyramids that the archaeologists travel to study, quietly paying their respects to the greatness of the culture that was before. Our own culture has no monuments to match that. Now their descendants live in cardboard boxes made into rough shelters. What happened? Conquerors, bad governments at times in history, modern drug lords and drug wars and governments still widely rumored to be either thoroughly incompetent or thoroughly corrupt ... or relatively powerless against the better-armed and more powerful drug lords. Mexico has had it rough. How long before people stop trying?

I think part of it is something called "learned helplessness" by the psychologists. If someone is prevented from solving a problem for long enough, they can easily give up on trying. If someone does not see how they control things in their own lives, they stop making any attempt to affect the outcome. Even if circumstances change so that it becomes possible to make a difference, that may go unnoticed. Too many things have failed before.

When psychologists first started studying learned helplessness, the original animal experiments were an exercise in cruelty to animals. Not to put too fine a point on it, the animals were systematically abused. Those experiments could be sub-titled "Why PETA was ultimately necessary." And now, whenever I see people showing learned helplessness on a massive scale, I tend to look for some kind of problem with the system -- where someone is deliberately doing something that makes the problem worse or prevents escape. It's even possible for someone to have good motives, and still be part of the problem.

In the United States, unemployment has become something of a "learned helplessness" problem, in that some of the unemployed have given up on trying to find work. Much like the animals in the old psychology experiments, it's hardly their fault. Jobs that were once our jobs have been systematically shipped overseas for many years now, or a blind eye has been turned while those jobs went to our friends from the south, regardless of whether they were here legally. I mean, we could spare the jobs, right? Or we could at the time. And every session of congress, or of the state legislature, or of the city council, adds layers of regulations intended to make things always safer, always more orderly, always more beneficial. And always more difficult to satisfy all the legal requirements. For a "free country", we sure have a huge number of restrictions.

The immigrants without legal paperwork, and the employers who are hiring without legal paperwork, have shown one thing: it is certainly possible to get work still. But there may not be a way to get work legally. And if the way to get work is illegal, that does seem to mean that the laws are part of the problem. Or as others have noticed before, the laws create the black market. The size of the black market is a comment on how much real supply and demand is being prevented by the laws.

Unemployment: it's structural (built into the system) at this point

I know this isn't my typical topic -- and I don't plan on becoming an economics-and-politics blog. But there comes a time when everyone in a democracy has a responsibility to speak out, and to speak plainly. Christians in particular should step forward to make sure peoples' needs are met. And one of the most pressing needs in our day is employment -- or resolving the unemployment crisis.

One reason I don't get very excited about elections is that the two major parties are, at the moment, both unwilling to do what it would take to fix the most serious problems facing our country.

Once upon a time, not too long ago, there weren't that many modernized and industrialized nations with stable societies, lots of natural resources, a reasonably well-educated workforce, and plenty of hard-working people. The U.S.A. was positioned better than many other nations. We became a modern major industrial superpower. And for a long time, we were the best game in town for prosperity and productivity. Our current laws and society grew up during that time. But since those laws and practices were put in place, the game has changed. And in our laws and society -- now set as part of what we see as normal -- we have built in some things that are making our current problems worse, and are likely to keep our current problems going strong.

This is not either a pro-union or anti-union rant, but I do need to mention unions because they have an important part to play in the history of our labor market.

Unions have kept an eye on company profits and have tried to make sure that labor got its perceived fair share. For those who preferred not to unionize, the government basically did it for them: it enacted mandatory minimum wage laws, and (in social security and medicare) minimum benefits laws. This has the basic effect of making every U.S. worker a member of a labor union, where the U.S. federal government negotiates the rates and benefits with U.S. employers.

Most people know how unions work, but I'm going somewhere with this so it bears a quick mention. Unions work by organizing all the workers in a certain labor market. When a union negotiates a contract, it has some muscle behind it: if the negotiations cannot be concluded successfully, the workers can strike. In order for a strike to work, it must mean that none of the workers will work. There can't be people sneaking around to offer their labor at a lower rate, or the whole negotiation will fail. So unions are most effective in this kind of tactic when the whole market is unionized -- when nobody will break a strike. Union workers consider it lower than low to break a strike. Union members have gained a reputation for meeting strike-breakers with fierce harassment or even violence because strikes only work -- unions only work -- when they have a monopoly on the labor market. If there's another equally capable set of employees available who are not unionized, the union becomes powerless. If there is no monopoly on labor, the only thing the union will accomplish is to put its own members out of work by pricing them out of the labor market.

The thing is, the game has changed since the U.S.A. set its habits and laws. In earlier decades, some jobs moved from unionized parts of the country to non-unionized parts of the country to seek out lower labor costs. These days, millions of jobs have left the U.S.A. entirely. These are millions of jobs that we are sorely missing in our struggling labor market. Remember that this is not just about traditional unions with formal leaders and collective bargaining; the federal minimum wage law makes every last citizen here a de facto member of a union -- asking higher wages than the worldwide market will support. The U.S.A. does not have a monopoly on a stable economy and an educated, motivated workforce. The U.S. workers do not have the kind of monopoly on the world labor market that is required in order for such a union scheme to successfully negotiate those wages. And so, in the worldwide market, the demand for relatively high wages will simply be ignored. Employers will do what makes economic sense: they will go where they can find the best price for labor, just like you and I would go where we find the best price for groceries, if the quality is comparable. The employers have been doing this, are now doing this, and will continue to do this: they are taking their jobs elsewhere. They will continue to do this as long as it makes economic sense for them to take their jobs elsewhere.

As citizens of the U.S.A., we are -- willingly or not -- members of a union where we are required to work for a certain minimum wage, where it is illegal for us to work for a lower wage, the while the worldwide labor market routinely works for less. We are, increasingly, left out in the cold. That will continue to cause many jobs to leave the U.S.A. until our labor prices again become competitive.

Here's another thing that it's unpopular to mention because it's so politically sensitive: the minimum wage laws are part of the illegal immigration problem. There are a whole slew of factors that go into illegal immigration; the biggest factors are that Mexico is a mess and America has more opportunity than that. So the problem of illegal immigration does not at all simplify to minimum wage. But here is one way that those two things interact: the reason people hire illegal workers is so that they can pay them illegal wages. It is sheer fantasy to imagine that, if the illegal workers suddenly became legal, that they would as a whole suddenly be making better money than they are now making. Oh, it's possible sometimes that might happen, somewhere, to some few workers. But in general, if someone was hiring an illegal worker under the false belief that they were legal, then they were already paying them legal wages because they believed them to be in the country legally. On the other hand, if someone was hiring an illegal worker knowingly, they probably did it precisely so that they could pay them illegal wages. If the person became a legal worker requiring legal wages, there is a real chance they would become unemployed, and the employer would go to find a new illegal worker in order to keep its costs down. If the employer's original intent was to hire an illegal worker precisely because of the price difference, then it's a real possibility that the employer would just move on to a new set of illegal workers and create a new wave of illegal immigrants. If the employer were willing to pay full legal wages, they could have already hired one of the millions who are currently unemployed. (Though we also have our unemployment system structured badly so that it contributes to the problem; that's a matter for another day ... )

Am I proposing something here? "Proposing" isn't quite what I have in mind; I see it more as "observing." I'm observing that the unemployment problem is built into our system. Because of that, it is unlikely to get better unless we are willing to re-align our pay scales with our competition. This would, no doubt, cause or require price adjustments across the board to bring us more into line with the rest of the world.

But haven't we had previous recessions that were resolved without dropping our labor prices? Not on this scale, not since other nations have gotten so competitive in the world labor market. Not since the labor market truly became a global labor market. The game has changed. The unemployed in this country aren't going to be employed again until new jobs are created. When employers try to decide where to hire people, is there solid reason for them to pick the U.S.A. over the competition?

---

I will probably continue this as a short series. Why? Because I think, when we expect politicians to solve our problems, it isn't entirely realistic. And part of free speech is that we're supposed to be putting in our two cents' worth.

A tale of naivety and risk? - How my 9/11 morning went

Amazing morning I had today.

So I had thought, "How can I send the Muslim community a message that most Christians would not burn a Quran? How can I let them know that, as far as it depends on us, we will live at peace and welcome anyone who comes to us?" Especially because that so-called pastor in Florida was threatening to burn the Quran. I wanted to send a better message.

I remember after so many tragedies around the world, people left flowers outside embassies. I remember after a tragedy at NASA, people left flowers outside of JSC. So I thought, "I'll leave flowers outside the gates of the local mosque on 9/11. That way the Muslim community will know that there is another reaction to Islam."

I bought flowers -- plenty of flowers, I thought -- and went early on 9/11 to the nearest mosque. I was wondering if I would see anyone there and have a chance to explain the gift, but I didn't see anyone.

I had been hoping to see someone so I could explain, but I settled for just leaving the flowers outside the gate, hoping that flowers as a goodwill gesture were fairly self-explanatory. I laid them out along the entrance from the road to their driveway.

I looked back at the finished product and thought, "That's not enough flowers." So I went to get some more.

When I came back, the flowers I had left earlier were gone. I wondered to myself who would have removed them. I still didn't see any signs of anyone at the mosque; the few vehicles there were in odd places in the lot as if they'd been left overnight, and it was early yet. I decided to just set out the second batch of flowers and leave.

While I was setting out the flowers, an elderly fellow drove onto the mosque's driveway. He rolled down his window and asked me what I was doing. Glad for an actual person to explain to, I said I was leaving flowers to send them a better message than some of the others they may have heard. He drove through the gates into the mosque.

I finished setting out the flowers quickly; now that there was someone there, I wanted the chance to ask where the first batch had gone and explain why I wanted to leave them.

That's when things got interesting.

While I was heading towards the gate (really a short trip; the driveway isn't that long) I saw another fellow coming my way. I was glad to see him coming at that point, since I didn't quite know where to knock to talk to someone, and it would have been a long walk across the parking lot too.

But he drove across the parking lot quickly -- too quickly, at nearly highway speeds. And he parked right behind my car -- too close. At first I didn't realize why he would park so recklessly close to another vehicle; I soon realized that there was nothing reckless or accidental at all in why he parked so close.

I wished him good morning. He began shouting at me, very angry, asking what I was doing. He asked who told me to leave the flowers. I said they were a gift.
He asked who gave me permission to leave flowers. I was surprised, but I had carefully left them outside the gate by the road; I just answered that I had meant them as a gift, and as a good gesture, not intending any harm. (I had no thought of needing permission to give flowers. I was hoping that by staying calm and open, he would become reassured that the gift was meant exactly as that, and see that there was nothing bad about leaving flowers.)

"I'm calling the police!" he said quite angrily. Then I realized his parking job so close behind me was meant to trap my car and prevent me from leaving. (Interesting that he chose to trap me as he sped across the lot before even speaking to me, knowing nothing except that I had come to drop off flowers.)

The other fellow, the elderly gentleman, was driving out now. The angry one told him to go park his car on the other side of mine, which would have had me even more thoroughly boxed in. I did not hear what the elderly fellow said to him. I mentioned that I had meant it as a good thing; the elderly fellow expressed his disapproval of my leaving flowers, but left without following the angry fellow's instructions to block in my car on another side.

I told the angry fellow that I didn't mind waiting for the police. (I thought this needed saying since he seemed concerned whether I was trapped enough.) I was glad to wait if it would ease his mind and show him I meant no trouble at all, and in fact had been trying to show them some kindness.

He made quite a show of phoning in my license plate number and describing me to the police. I offered to talk to the police and give them my personal information, but he did not respond.

He scooped up all the flowers and put them in the bed of the truck. I said, "Of course, you'll save the flowers so the police can see." He looked at me without answering, but he did leave the flowers in the bed of his truck.

The agitated fellow did not wait where I could see, but left his truck blocking my car. I wasn't even sure if the police had agreed to come or not, and as time went by I became skeptical. Honestly, I could have left by making a small turn across their lawn and circling around, but I didn't want to give him any cause to suspect I had meant any harm or was avoiding the police, so I decided I would give them an hour before I pressed the issue of whether the police were really coming. I waited sitting on the low brick wall outside the gate.

I suppose it was 15 or 20 minutes before the police arrived. The police spoke first to the angry fellow who had called them. I couldn't hear the conversation because of the distance, except that his voice was raised, shouting, at a few points. He had remained decidedly angry and hostile the whole time.

Then the police came over and asked me what was going on. I told them that I wanted to do something to show them that not everyone was against them, this being 9/11 and that nutcase in Florida stirring up trouble, that I wanted to try to do something better.

It was all sorted out within a minute or two of the police coming. I agreed not to come back, naturally (I'd had no idea that it would be taken badly in the first place). And the police made him move his truck so that I could leave.

An amazing morning, all things considered.

But if someone says to you, "Nobody ever makes any goodwill gestures towards the Muslim community" -- just know that they're quite wrong about that.

How those goodwill gestures are received is another question entirely.

---

(And to a couple of people who know me in real life: No, really, I don't think that was a good plan, all things considered, and I am not planning on any repeats.)

10 More constructive things to do on 9/11 than burn a Quran

1. Stay in bed (it's more constructive than sowing discord).
2. Read a Quran.
   
3. Read a Bible.
4. Act on the Bible.
5. Bless those who curse you.
6. Pray for those who persecute you.
7. Do not return evil for evil.
8. But repay evil with good.
9. Greet your Muslim neighbor or shopkeeper.
10. Leave a goodwill memorial outside your local mosque on 9/11 (a wreath, for example). (On second thought, maybe not.)

How about:
10. Pray for all Muslims to come to know Jesus Christ in truth.

For the love of God, NO: Open letter to Dove World Outreach Center of Gainesville FL

You insist that burning a Quran is "neither an act of love nor of hate." While that is difficult to believe, and difficult to imagine how you might actually believe it -- to the extent that it smells of duplicity -- still, let us suppose that you believe it to be true. The fact that you proclaim it is not an act of love means you have already parted company with Jesus.

If you are not acting in love -- and you freely admit you are not -- then you testify against yourselves that Love of God and Love of Neighbor are not your highest goals. Jesus said that Love of God and Love of Neighbor are the two greatest commandments; yet you choose to set these aside and set something else above these. You set aside the teachings of Jesus when you do this, and in setting aside his teachings you are not his followers. You testify against yourselves that Jesus' teachings on what is the highest good is not your own idea and that you will not listen to him, or that you judge his teachings on this are not worth following all the time.

The most striking thing in all of this has been your utter refusal to repent, your complete hard-heartedness towards anyone who might, frankly, steer you to a wiser course. If you think you are sending the message "the Quran is dangerous" you are badly mistaken. When you speak without love, you are a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal; don't kid yourselves, when you burn a Quran the only thing that people will hear and see is the ugly noise that you are making. Any other message you may have will be lost; the Bible promises that.

Anything you do as a church, or at the church, should be done in the name of God. This cannot be done in the name of God, as it sets aside the greatest of the commandments. As a church you must not burn anything, or do any other loveless acts, ever; especially not in the name of God.

If you love God, if you love Christ, if you trust that Jesus was right that the highest and best of all the commandments is to love God, and the second is to love your neighbor, if you believe the Bible that no one will hear you if you have no love -- then for the love of God, stop.

The Christian reaction to the Ground Zero Mosque?

I have, in the main, seen two reaction to the Ground Zero Mosque. The conservatives, generally more security-minded than liberals, are aware of the triumphalist message this sends to people who endorsed, applauded, or otherwise expressed sympathies with the 9/11 attacks against America, a group that reportedly includes the intended imam of the proposed mosque. The liberals, generally more multi-cultural minded than conservatives, want to send a welcoming message -- one that makes it clear that such attacks are not necessary because we in America mean no harm to the Muslim world, and that we can overlook the people who sympathize with that type of attack in order to welcome the Muslim community at large.

Both of those political responses have components of Christian thought in them. The liberals have tended towards love for enemies (though possibly at the expense of love for neighbor, if the neighbors are the thousands of families who lost loved ones to terrorist attacks that day, or simply people who do not feel safe with a religious leader who reportedly expressed some sympathies with those attacks setting up camp a stone's throw away). The conservatives have tended towards love for neighbor (though, as far as I can tell, without any recognition that love for enemies should factor into the thinking, or that American Muslim communities include many people who do not, at the present time, endorse attacking America and have not joined the call for open military jihad against us).

It's tempting to get wrapped up in the political and secular end of the question. If I had been a Muslim, good conscience would forbid me to ever set foot in the Ground Zero Mosque because it would give the appearance of endorsing terrorist attacks. This does not seem to be a concern in the Muslim community. I can't imagine Germans building a business-as-usual government building next to the remains of Auschwitz, or the U.S. building a "military technology" museum at Hiroshima. So I do think that, regardless of our own personal reactions to the mosque, we need to notice the lack of that kind of outcry in the Muslim community. What happened at Ground Zero should make them want to reject that site for "business as usual" for their own reasons, if they do not intend to endorse what happened there. It is one thing to debate whether the New Yorkers have a right to object; but like Sherlock Holmes and the dog barking in the night, it is easy to overlook what you're not hearing. A group opposed to what happened there would not want to build a mosque there if they saw that place as the ultimate shame of their religion, that their co-religionists perpetrated such an outrage against humanity. A group that was solidly opposed to what happened there would have its own people screaming out in protest at the choice of the site. The Muslim community knows how to do a protest; why is this passing in relative silence?

But it is at times like this, when the political stakes look to be very high, that it is tempting to stay on that level. As far as the U.S. reaction goes, none of it is surprising. After all, "liberal" and "conservative" are primarily political or ideological identifications, not religious ones and not specifically Christian ones. So the risk is, when the political and ideological stakes are that high, that we lose our specifically Christian identities. We cease being primarily followers of Christ and end up becoming partisans tossed about by every wind of current events. As Christians, we love our neighbors -- and want to keep them safe, and want to heal their wounds. As Christians, we love our enemies -- not just the "safe" ones who don't sympathize with terrorists, either. Most of the political groups are already missing one or the other of those. But the missing piece: as Christians, we proclaim Jesus as the true way to God. No one who takes Jesus' words to heart can endorse a terrorist attack; it is impossible.

Friends, if we really want everyone to live together in peace, the name of Christ is the only thing that will do it. Secularism and goodwill aren't actually strong enough for the job. And regardless of whether we are granted times of peace or not, the love of God in Christ is our message. The politically-minded will see this as hopelessly naive. I suppose we're even; I see faith in politics as hopelessly naive. There is no political answer for how to turn a terrorist into a friend; terrorists either die or become oppressors, unless they have a change of heart so that their hatred dies. Christ is that change of heart. We fail to recognize that at our own risk.

The Anne Rice Meme?

For those who missed it, recently Anne Rice publicly announced that she was renouncing Christianity but not Christ. She equated Christianity with being anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control [er, she was Roman Catholic], anti-Democrat, anti-science, anti-secular humanism, and anti-life. While it's easy to note that she's off the mark and probably just angry, the second part is what I want to ask you all about. I expect we all know the feeling of being angry -- justifiably angry -- about things in the church or the state of Christianity. (The exceptions, I think, are people who have in the last few years converted from one group to another; they haven't spotted the problems with their new group yet, or had the time to become annoyed with the problems.)

Some people pull an Anne Rice and make a big show of storming out the door, lobbing dramatic accusations over the shoulder on the way out. (Who knows, it may do some good; God has used odder things to make a positive difference.) I've recently posted why I don't take that route of giving up on Christianity. So how about a meme, for those who are familiar with the frustrations:

1. Name 3 things that really annoy you about church in general.
2. Name 3 reasons why you stay.

Here are mine:

Name 3 things that really annoy you about church in general
1. The cruelty and vindictiveness of some of the arguments between groups
2. The arrogance of people who are sure that all the good is on their particular side of an argument
3. The way church authority has worked out to stifling discussion about what is right, and has basically meant toeing the party line wherever you may happen to be.

Name 3 reasons why you stay
1. Jesus
2. God is trying to bless us
3. God is trying to let us be a blessing to the world

Anyone who has frustrations is invited to respond with what they are and why they stay.

So "TEOTWAWKI" wasn't a character from the movie Avatar?

I recently met the acronym TEOTWAWKI: The End Of The World As We Know It. Kind of sad that it has its own acronym, isn't it?

But I came across it on some websites that were part of my research as I've taken up hobbyist-level gardening, and have been reading up on sustainability, re-using seeds (no hybrids!) and so forth. It's also the beginnings of hurricane season and I live in hurricane country, so I've been making sure my disaster preparedness plans are all set for the upcoming year. But these days, if you google "disaster preparedness plans", you generally find people worrying about something more interesting than hurricane season.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not bothered by people who try to live sustainable lives in their own back yards, or take their gardening to the next level as part of a survival plan, or do urban homesteading, or any of that. It has a kind of geeky appeal that I thoroughly understand. I mean, there were Victory Gardens in WWII, right? What bothers me is that some people are seriously discussing, as part of their TEOTWAWKI plans, having enough ammo to blast away the mobs that would steal all of their food. Sure, food is a survival matter; sure, stealing is wrong; sure, self-defense is justifiable. It's just that, if we're seriously planning for things we can buy to make us less likely to starve to death if a hungry mob comes along, how about enough seeds for them too, and some spare flour to keep them going until then? Just saying.

The main fault I see in the TEOTWAWKI discussions I've seen on-line is this: not taking seriously the need to *rebuild*, not just merely survive. And that takes being able to see people as a community -- even if they're too panicked to act like one at the moment.

Just food for thought, if we see the mythical TEOTWAWKI in our day.

The prevalence of dishonest scales in political conversation

You shall not have in your pouch alternate weights, larger and smaller. You shall not have in your house alternate measures, a larger and a smaller. You must have completely honest weights and completely honest measures if you are to endure long on the soil that the LORD your God is giving you. For everyone who does those things, everyone who deals dishonestly, is abhorrent to the LORD your God. (Deut 25:13-16)

In business and commerce, it used to be a problem for people to have two different measures: a big one for friends, a little one for other people. So if you bought a measure of grain, not everybody got good treatment. Somebody got shortchanged.

Jesus made sure we understood that this applies to our social dealings with people too. In Luke 6, we see Jesus' teaching on loving our enemies as part of the same conversation as not having a double-standard. "If you love only those who love you ... if you do good only to those who do good to you ... even sinners do that. Be merciful ... Do not judge or condemn ... Forgive ... For with the measure you use it will be measured to you." It's all of the same train of thought; it forms a cohesive whole.

I think the most prevalent area in which I see double-standards is when people talk politics. Time after time, each group points out the other group's wing-nuts and claims they are representative; each group looks at its own wing-nuts and claims they are by no means representative. Each group points fingers at the others; each group quietly gives its own a free pass. Transgressions of the other group must be discussed today; our own group's problems ... well, maybe we'll get around to that someday. If someone in the other group does something wrong, their group identity must be pointed out and made partially to blame. If someone in our own group does something wrong, the group identity is not mentioned; it's clearly irrelevant. No matter what the other group is doing, the meanest and lowest motivations are assumed. No matter what a person's own group is doing, the best and highest motivations are assumed. And the odd thing is, a certain percentage of people could probably manage to read this paragraph and suppose that kind of thing mainly happens on the other side of the fence.

I can't help but wonder: What would happen if we didn't have a false measure, a dishonest scale, a double standard? What would happen if the problems of our ideological enemies were treated as kindly and charitably as our own? What would happen if we treated our enemies with the same benefit of the doubt and willingness to forgive that we reserve for our own side? If we treated others as we would want to be treated, would we still have true enemies?

If you had told me yesterday ...

If you had told me yesterday that today I would think the internet itself had a hole in it, I would have thought that was nonsense. But it's true. Today, the internet has a hole in it. I expect most of you have already heard that Michael Spencer has died. God bless your final rest, and see you upstairs in a few years. But until then, I will miss you.

Sexually abusive priests; how can we have forgiveness and accountability?

This article was originally written in 2004, but seems timely again. A few of the references (e.g. the John Jay study) are years old, but not much else has changed. I'm not Roman Catholic, but I think it's too easy for us Protestants to cast the first stone; the issue of standing firm on both forgiveness and accountability is always a challenge in a religion that insists on God's forgiveness.

---

"Why," you may ask, "should we discuss sexually abusive priests again? Isn't the secular media just hashing over old news? Aren't we just dwelling needlessly on something that is past? And this is a delicate subject. Some reactions to the scandals in the priesthood have crossed the line to Catholic-bashing. But more to the point, isn't the matter resolved? Isn't the church hierarchy taking steps to towards resolving the problem? Isn't it right that we should move on now?"

The problem is that we have not really resolved it. We have become embarrassed or taken sides, and may have seriously wished that the whole thing had never happened. But we have not resolved it. Here I will not discuss whether we should forgive the priests. For one, I was not wronged personally. For another, the offenders' ultimate redemption or condemnation is in God's hands. The question I wish to discuss is what we should do here and now. The church has taken steps all along, from investigating the allegations to treating the offenders to reassigning them, but those were not the solution. How do we know the current solution is any better? Have we actually discussed what an appropriate response would be?

This is where the history lesson of David and Bathsheba comes into our discussion (see 2 Samuel chapters 11 and 12). The Biblical narrative of David's fall into sin is very much to the point here because it deals with another sinner who was in a position of authority, one who abused his authority in order to commit his crime. After committing indecency with the wife of Uriah, David used his God-appointed position as king to arrange for the battlefield death of Uriah to try to cover up his crime. Uriah died, Bathsheba became the wife of David, and a son, conceived in David's treachery and deceit, was born.

In David's day, these were capital offenses. By law, he could have been executed. The king was not above the law of God. But looking at the Biblical history of David, we see that he confessed, he repented, and he was forgiven. He would not die for his crimes. "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die," the prophet Nathan announced to David.

Still, more came of David's sin.
1) The power of wars and battles, which he had abused, was turned back against his house;
2) The son he had as a result of his indecency was also taken from him by death.

In our own day, we seem to have confused forgiveness with the trust to continue with the same power and authority. Consider this example: A man hired his friend to work as a cashier in his store. After a time, the friend was found to have stolen a substantial amount of money from the store. This man could go to prison if convicted of the crime. The store owner forgives him: the offender will not be prosecuted and will not go to prison. But that hardly means that he gets to keep the stolen money or the position as cashier.

This was much the situation with David. He abused his authority, committed adultery, murdered Uriah, and received the blessing of a son by an adulterous union. Adultery and murder bore the death penalty. David was forgiven; he was not executed. But he did not enjoy the blessing of his son, who died. God also turned the power that David had abused -- the power of the sword -- back on David's own house.

In the case of the offending priests, we seem to have made the grave mistake of imagining that forgiveness of sins is the only issue to address. It is not. While reports like the one commissioned of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice may speak of a "misguided willingness to forgive," it is not the willingness to forgive -- or even the forgiveness itself -- that is misguided. The priests and their supervisors will stand or fall before God based on his own justice and mercy. The part that was misguided was this: not to recognize that continuing in a position of trust and authority is a separate issue. We should not confuse the full forgiveness of an offense with a supposed entitlement to keep a position of power. In Scripture, we see that the power which God had granted King David was turned back against him. His effective authority was lessened forever. Looking further back before David, we see that Saul was removed from his God-given position. Likewise, an abusive priest should not expect to continue in any position that allows the possibility of continued abuses, nor should be he be allowed to continue.

Some will say, "Isn't the abuse of power a sin like any other? As such, shouldn't it also be forgiven?" Of course, it is a sin that can be forgiven like any other. This is like the thief who abused his job to get money. In the case of the thief, the sin may be forgiven and the offender may not go to prison, but that does not mean he is entitled to keep the money or the cashier's job. The store owner may possibly decide to allow him to stay in another position, but as he values his cash drawer, he will keep the man who is tempted to steal far away from it. In the case of the abusive priest, the sin may be forgiven. The offender may not go to hell. Because of God's great mercy and power, even the most severely twisted soul can be re-created in the image of Christ. But that does not mean the abuser is entitled to keep his position of authority. As we value the children, we will keep those who abuse them far away from them. It has long been recognized that even with full forgiveness, there may be necessary consequences of a sin.

We have also made the mistake of confusing repentance with rehabilitation. Of course rehabilitation is impossible without repentance -- but that misses the point. Many people who repent are nevertheless plagued continually by sins they abhor and regret, never being cured fully of their evil inclination or their weakness to that temptation. Opportunities for evil are constantly around us. These only seem appealing when there is an answering character flaw in a person which makes that evil seem desirable. That is the nature of being tempted within ourselves: a desire for evil. We carry our character flaws with us always, even while striving to diminish them. They are not entirely gone until the day when we are fully re-created in the image of Christ. Simply because a person has repented does not mean that person is safe or beyond temptation. If we know that a particularly destructive sin tempts a person, we should not place him in a situation which lends opportunity to commit that sin. If a priest has committed sexual abuse, then we know that there is a character flaw in him which makes that evil seem appealing. We also know that the flaw is serious enough to overcome him. That priest should never again hold a position that provides opportunity for abuse. "Flee from temptation" is good advice for all of us, clergy and laity alike (see I Cor 6:18, I Cor 10:14, 1 Tim 6:11, 2 Tim 2:22). Forgiveness does not make it acceptable to place a weak brother in temptation or another person in danger because of it.

Of all types of sinners, why single out sexually abusive priests to be removed from office? After all, all priests are human therefore all priests commit sins. But not all sins tend to devastate the victims' souls, and not all sins involve abuse of the position of priesthood. A sin which does either -- devastate others' souls or abuse authority -- may be sufficient grounds to remove a priest from such a position. For a sin that does both, simple responsibility requires that the person be removed immediately from the position, even if the sin itself may be forgiven. We may declare God's forgiveness to the penitent, but a position of trust is only rightly given to a trustworthy character. Trust based on penitence alone is wishful thinking. Our decisions to prevent abuse must acknowledge the reality of temptation and human weakness even among the forgiven and penitent.

Finally, we must look at the ultimate reason why this issue is not resolved and for decades has not been resolved. There has been complacency, and even complicity, of far too many in the church hierarchy. Everybody agrees in principle that a supervisor is accountable for those he supervises. In the case of those who supervise abusive priests, the conduct of many in the church hierarchy seems more than simply negligent. It needs its own repentance. The signs of genuine repentance include a plain admission of wrongdoing and anguish over the harm that has been done. For the most part, these have been lacking. The official response has smacked more of embarrassment than repentance. Embarrassment is more concerned with the loss of self-image and the bad publicity than with the evil of the offense itself. The John Jay study cited an "overemphasis on the avoidance of scandal"; there was more concern at times for whether the church would be embarrassed than whether the children of the parish were being violated.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that we all should forgive the hierarchy. While this is a legitimate issue, it must not deflect from the present discussion. We must hold the hierarchy responsible for their actions. Forgiveness must never be a license to irresponsibility. And is it so unreasonable to try to find out whether the repentance is genuine? Would God have accepted any lesser sacrifice of David than a broken spirit and a contrite heart? Wouldn't God have despised any offering from hearts that were far from Him? Would David be a hero to us today if he had not finally become more pained by his wrongdoing than by the subsequent embarrassment that it caused him? The church's response has lacked credibility. We know that God's healing comes after confession and repentance. A plain admission of wrongdoing, unsullied by excuses, needs to resound. Every voice in the church, from top to bottom, needs to call out genuine outrage and anguish that such a thing ever happened and vow that it must never be allowed to happen again. Is anything less than this really repentance?

After we have established that there is genuine repentance, that leaves the necessary matter of repairing the wrong as far as we are able. Those who have been abused must never again be swept under the rug simply to avoid embarrassment. Any healing we can give them is long overdue. And let each member of the church be called by genuine repentance to work as hard as they are able, the rest of their lives, to earn back the respect and to restore the honor which has been lost to the name of Christ.

Haiti ... and disaster preparedness (seriously)

I know you can't prepare for a 7.0 earthquake hitting Haiti's capital. But as I was looking over the list of items being collected for a 2-container shipment to Haiti, I noticed the list looked familiar.

Bottled water
Canned food with pop tops
Peanut butter
Dry rice
Dry beans
Dishwashing liquid
Bedding (sheets, pillows, etc.)
Shovels and tools for rebuilding
Buckets
Antibacterial ointment
Band aids
Washcloths
Soap
Deodorant
individual packets of disinfectant wipes
Tooth brushes
Tooth paste
Band-aids
First aid ointment
Clean, used clothing in good condition (Must be sorted by type such as women's clothing, children's clothing, etc., and boxed and labeled).

Given that we have disasters fairly regularly, and that we have them often enough that the dry goods won't expire between one disaster and the next, why exactly don't we have care packages -- or a container of them -- ready to roll at all times?

Might be worth a look ...

Of Fellowship, Fundamentalists, and Girl Scout Cookies

I have long known that my current church affiliation is occasionally something on the fundamentalist side. I think I had heard someone mention before that scouting (Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts) was frowned upon. I had no clear idea why, but as I had bigger fish to fry I didn't really worry about it.

Then a year and a half ago my daughter wanted to join scouts, and I checked; there aren't actually any religious requirements to join and the Girl Scouts do not actually see themselves as a religious organization. They do not have any religious teaching, and defer all religious education to the hands of the child's own parents and/or congregation. Based on that, I figured it was safe to enjoy the benefits of Girl Scouts. I let her join, and she's been happily selling cookies and making crafts ever since.

I didn't think there was anything wrong with it, so while I didn't exactly put an announcement in the church bulletin, I didn't conceal it either. I wasn't entirely expecting the reaction when news began to get around. Oh, sure, some people are supportive, but generally very quietly. I can see why the support has been more quiet and private; but more on that in a minute. Meanwhile, I have been made the undoubted target of a Bible study on "fellowship" -- by which, in a way only our group could manage, the study does not mean "brotherhood and bonding with fellow Christians", but "why we should dissociate ourselves completely from anyone who is not in 100% agreement about all doctrine and most practices, including Scouts".

The Bible study has been drawn up by one of our younger elders. It is not at all up to the usual standard I expect for a Bible study. It is occasionally mocking or insulting. For example, when discussing concerns that Girl Scouts mention "duty to God" but are fine with people of all faiths, the Bible study puts it that it could be "Buddha, Allah, 'Heavenly Father', your particular voodoo spirit, or the little green man that visits you late at night". That came across as mocking, and seemed out of place in a Bible study. I think some of the rhetoric in the study is over the top. The verse "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?" was brought up in this study, as if joining scouts is tantamount to losing your soul for worldly gain. (Really, the cookies aren't quite that good ... though maybe the Thin Mints. My daughter is mostly into the friendship and companionship with other girls her age, and they actually didn't make her sign away her soul in exchange. I think she benefits from it. It's why we're there.) The grand finale of the Bible Study is priceless.

Maybe it will take years, but what will you do on that future day if your child comes back to you and says, "Why did you let me do that? Why did you let me lie about God? Why didn't you stop me?"

It's hard to know whether to object more to the false accusation or to the emotional blackmail, or whether they're both missing what is, to me, the ultimate point: the Scout organization doesn't teach religion or have a profession of faith, and leaves all such in the hands of the parents and/or congregation.

I don't often use this blog just to vent, and please pardon me for trying your patience like that now. I just need to be able to discuss this with my head on straight when it comes up again -- and it will. Sunday night's Bible study was -- what, four or five on one against me. I stayed calm and level-headed -- not easy to do with "Why did you let me lie about God" on the table. Interestingly, that segment of the quote was carefully skipped by the study leader, wife of the elder in question. I wonder if she realized that accusation was inappropriate and at least bordering on bearing false witness, or whether she actually agreed but knew we were out of time & wouldn't have a chance to sort through that can of worms.

To the best of my knowledge, with the research I've done, the concern seems to be based on a misunderstanding / misperception of the nature of Girl Scouts. I hope to pursue it from that angle. One of the ladies in the study has been reaching out in friendship to me, but still thinks Scouts must be a risk of spiritual harm to my daughter and is completely on board with the need for us to leave Scouts.

My thoughts on my daughter's spiritual well-being are these:

• Odds, if we stay in Scouts, that she would come to believe that "your particular voodoo spirit or the little green man who visits you at night" is equal to God: something around 0%.
• Odds, if we have to leave the church because the church as a whole decided that the scouts actually teach such a thing, that her trust in the general decency, sanity, and good judgment of Christians will take a hit: I don't have a number, but I bet it's closer to 100%.

Wish me luck. Prayers and insights are welcome too.

The economy: All in favor of accountability ... ?

I have to admit being mystified by some of the approaches taken to shore up the economy. If we don't know who is going to get the money and how it is going to be used, then how do we know it will have the effect we intend? If we don't know those things, then how do we know how much we need? Do we know whether the real job will take half that amount, or twice that amount? If we don't know any of the above, then how can we measure whether the intervention was a success?

Have you heard the principle that the amount of work will expand to fill the time allotted to complete it? I expect the need for money will expand to fill the amount available. But do we know when to stop?

Accountability is the main thing I ask of this bailout. Simple accountability.

Is Pacifist Absolutism Immoral?

Unconditional belligerence is plainly immoral, among the most destructive forces at work in the world. The world has too much war. I can easily understand the desire for all war to cease. In a very understandable reaction against a too-belligerent world, a growing number of people hold the position that its opposite -- unconditional pacifism -- must therefore be the moral alternative. In fact, some of the New Pacifists would say that absolute pacifism is the only moral alternative.

My contention here is that absolute or unconditional pacifism is itself an immoral position. Is that overstated? I don't think so; consider what happens when anything -- pacifism included -- is elevated to an absolute, and claims the spot as the single highest moral good in existence, bar none. Make no mistake: whenever something becomes unconditional, that means it is claiming sole title to the highest possible spot. If it were not claiming the highest spot for itself, it would be conditional on whatever was more important, rather than unconditional. The fact that many New Pacifists brook no arguments and will not interact with other viewpoints (other than to display disdain) is evidence of unwillingness to consider the blind spots that come with such absolute allegiance to any position.

The most noticeable blind spot of pacifist absolutism is this: What is the morally right choice when two moral principles are in conflict? What happens when one good motive is in direct conflict with another? Jesus spoke of this kind of situation. He used an example common to his hearers, the custom of circumcising a child even on the Sabbath day. Two positive principles from that culture are in conflict: the Sabbath and the covenant of circumcision. The greater one wins, and a child is circumcised even on the Sabbath. Whoever breaks a lesser rule to keep a greater one is innocent of any wrongdoing and is considered without fault in breaking the lesser rule. In using this common example for his hearers, he established the general principle that the greater principle should be followed in the case of a conflict.

The ultimate test of absolutist pacifism occurs when there is a choice between defending the innocents who would be killed or offering no effective resistance. This situation arises time and again in human history: someone intent on attacking and killing will not be stopped by anything less than force. Here there is a direct conflict of life against life. Here unconditional pacifism ends up sacrificing the lives of the innocent in order to preserve their own personal theoretical innocence and the lives of the attackers. But such an innocence is a very tainted innocence. If the choice has come to the point where pacifism means deliberately consigning the innocent to death and refusing to act meaningfully in their defense, then at that point pacifism has become immoral. If the choice is between protecting the aggressor and protecting the victim, then protecting the aggressor is the lesser duty, but protecting the innocent is the greater duty. Make no mistake: as Christians we still see a duty to protect even the guilty. But the duty to protect the guilty does not trump the duty to protect the innocent.

Pacifism often makes the mistake of considering inaction to be morally neutral, or considering talk to be substantially different from inaction even when the other person is clearly not listening. It is not. Whoever sacrifices an unwilling innocent to save the guilty has blood on their hands, even if they never took up arms; doubly so if they did it for selfish reasons of maintaining their own personal purity and claim to personal innocence while turning their backs on those in life-threatening danger. Under those circumstances, it is the defenders of the innocent whose actions are pure even if they took human life, and the deserters of the innocent who have blood on their hands even if they assume their hands are clean -- a mistaken assumption under the circumstances.

To be sure, war and violence are often used wrongly. They are probably used wrongly more often than they are used justly. I would not want anyone to suppose that those speaking against any given war are immoral. The voice calling for peace is a valuable voice that speaks of what all innocent people wish could happen. Peace is always the goal and should be the first choice of method. There are even times when the person being attacked is willing to die; in this special case, pacifism may be morally permissible even to the point of the innocent's death. But when the innocent victim is unwilling to die, and when the aggressor will not stop until the victim is dead, then inaction is no longer ethical or acceptable, and indecisive action is no better than inaction. It is not always honest to tag any use of force with the pejorative labels "violence" or "belligerence".

In some ways, pacifism has become the new purity code: some New Pacifists have no trouble at all saying not only that they are right, but making clear that anyone who disagrees with them is, on their view, morally unclean. In this, I believe they are badly mistaken.

The hazards of writing about the dangers of pacifism are that the dangers of belligerence are, in the majority of cases, greater. Why would I speak out against pacifism? Because the New Pacifists are, often enough, absolutists. Because the time will come again when innocent lives are at stake, when the desire to protect the guilty conflicts with the desire to protect the innocent. I would not see the innocent sacrificed to someone's noble but misguided decision to prioritize the lives of the guilty over the innocent, or the misguided decision to live out the desire to keep ourselves from bloodshed in such a way that we are to blame for the bloodshed we refuse to stop.

---

This has been in the back of my mind for awhile, but actually putting my thoughts into a post was spurred by this post and its comments at Ancient Hebrew Poetry. The earnest pacifist in the comment thread there is not at all the direct cause or addressee of these comments, as they had been in my mind for some time. She simply reminded me that I was overdue to post my thoughts on the subject.

Election 2008: Cheers and Congratulations to ...

... whoever becomes our new President. Here's to new beginnings.

Take care & God bless.